BR  45  .B63  1897 

Schwab,  Laurence  Henry,  1857 

-1911. 
The  kingdom  of  God 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 

AN   ESSAY  IN  THEOLOG 


^^^^  Of  PR/A 


DEC  1  /  19^ 


THE   BOHLEN   LECTURES,   1897 


LAURENCE    HENRY   SCHWAB 

Rector  of  St.  Marv's  Churcli,  New  York 


"  In  matters  which  concern  the  actions  of  God,  the  most  dutiful 
way  on  our  part  is  to  search  what  God  hath  done,  and  with 
meekness  to  admire  that,  rather  than  to  dispute  what  he  in  con- 
gruity  of  reason  ought  to  do." — Richard  Hooker. 


NEW  YORK 
E.  r.  DUTTON  AND  COMPANY 

31  West  Twenty-third  Street 
1897 


COPYRIGHT 

E.  P.  DUTTON  AND  CO. 

1897 


Ube  Thnicfcerbochcr  t>tc6i.  f\cw  yorh 


THE  JOHN  BOHLEN  LECTURESHIP. 

John  Bohlen,  who  died  in  Philadelphia  on  the 
26th  day  of  April,  1874,  bequeathed  to  trustees  a 
fund  of  One  Hundred  Thousand  Dollars,  to  be  dis- 
tributed to  religious  and  charitable  objects  in  accord- 
ance with  the  well-known  wishes  of  the  testator. 

By  a  deed  of  trust,  executed  June  2,  1875,  the 
trustees,  under  the  will  of  Mr.  Bohlen,  transferred 
and  paid  over  to  "  The  Rector,  Church  Wardens, 
and  Vestrymen  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Trinity, 
Philadelphia,"  in  trust,  a  sum  of  money  for  certain 
designated  purposes,  out  of  which  fund  the  sum  of 
Ten  Thousand  Dollars  was  set  apart  for  the  endow- 
ment of  The  John  Bohlen  Lectureship,  upon 
the  following  terms  and  conditions: 

"  The  money  shall  be  invested  in  good,  substantial, 
and  safe  securities,  and  held  in  trust  for  a  fund  to  be 
called  The  John  Bohlen  Lectureship,  and  the  income 
shall  be  applied  annually  to  the  payment  of  a  qualified 
person,  whether  clergyman  or  layman,  for  the  delivery 
and  publication  of  at  least  one  hundred  copies  of  two  or 
more  lecture-sermons.  These  lectures  shall  be  de- 
livered at  such  time  and  place,  in  the  city  of  Philadel- 
phia, as  the  persons  nominated  to  appoint  the  lecturer 
shall  from  time  to  time  determine,  giving  at  least  six 
months'  notice  to  the  person  appointed  to  deliver  the 

iii 


iv  THE    JOHN    JiOllLEN    LECTURESHIP. 

same,  when  tlie  same  may  conveniently  be  done,  and  in 
no  case  selecting  the  same  person  as  lecturer  a  second 
time  within  a  period  of  five  years.  The  payment  shall 
be  made  to  said  lecturer,  after  the  lectures  have  been 
printed  and  received  by  the  trustees,  of  all  the  income 
for  the  year  derived  from  said  fund,  after  defraying  the 
expense  of  printing  the  lectures  and  the  other  incidental 
expenses  attending  the  same. 

"  The  subject  of  such  lectures  shall  be  such  as  is 
within  the  terms  set  forth  in  the  will  of  the  Rev.  John 
Bampton,  for  the  delivery  of  what  are  known  as  the 
'  Bampton  Lectures,'  at  Oxford,  or  any  other  subject 
distinctively  connected  with  or  relating  to  the  Christian 
Religion. 

"  The  lecturer  shall  be  appointed  annually  in  the 
month  of  May,  or  as  soon  thereafter  as  can  conven- 
iently be  done,  by  the  persons  who  for  the  time  being 
shall  hold  the  offices  of  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  of  the  Diocese  in  which  is  the  Church  of 
the  Holy  Trinity  ;  the  Rector  of  said  Church  ;  the  Pro- 
fessor of  Biblical  Learning,  the  Professor  of  Systematic 
Divinity,  and  the  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  in 
the  Divinity  School  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  Philadelphia. 

"  In  case  either  of  said  ofifices  are  vacant,  the  others 
may  nominate  the  lecturer." 

Under  this  trust,  the  Rev.  L.  H.  Schwab  was 
appointed  to  deliver  the  lectures  for  the  year  1897. 


TO  MY  WIFE 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION.  hage 

"The  kingdom  of  God  "    .......  i 

Christ's  nature  and  his  work  distinguished          ...  T 

Theoretical  and  religious  judgments  .....  3-13 

Theories  of  cognition  and  psychology         ....  13-15 

The  question  of  a  "proof"  of  Christianity                   .  16-18 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE    RELIGIOUS    DETERMINATION    OF    THE    CHRISTIAN  LIFE. 

The  eternal  life          ........  19-24 

Man's  relation  to  God        .......  24-30 

Sin 30-42 

Forgiveness        .........  42-49 

Forgiveness  not  indifference       ......  49-51 

CHAPTER    II. 

THE   ATONEMEM  . 

Forgiveness  and  justification      ......  52-54 

Forgiveness,  a  synthetic  judgment     .....  54 

God  forgives  as  Father       .......  55 

The  Church  as  the  object  of  forgiveness     ....  57-6o 

Faith  as  the  act  of  man      .......  60-62 

Forgiveness,  the  constitutive  principle  of  Christianity          .  62-64 

Forgiveness  through  Christ         ......  65-S5 

Christ  as  a  mere  preacher  of  forgiveness      .  66-70 

Theories  of  the  atonement  .  .  .  70-85 

The  "  imitation  "  of  Christ 85-87 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE   ETERNAL   LIFE. 

Peculiarity  of  the  Christian  life — its  scope           .         .          .  88-92 

The  "  eternal  life"  in  the  New  Testament          .          .          .  92-96 

"  Optimism"     .........  96 

Christian  mastery       ........  97-100 

Mysticism .  100-103 

Natural  and  revealed  religion     ......  103 

Christianity,  the  upholder  of  modern  civili/aiiou          .          .  105-113 

The  Church's  function — worship         .....  113-119 

The  poets  as  Christian  seers       ......  1 19-122 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   IDEA   OF   GOD. 

The  value-tests  and  the  metaphysical  idea  of  God       .         .  123-129 

The  moral  argument           .......  129-136 

Evil  in  its  relation  to  the  idea  of  God    '     .          .          .          .  136 

Argument  from  beauty       .......  137-140 

vii 


\111 


COXTENTS. 


Revelation.     Dualism  in  the  idea  of  God  .... 

Efforts  to  surmount  the  dualism  ..... 

God  as  arbitary  will   ........ 

Conditions  for  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  God 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE  IDEA  OF  GOD.    (Continued). 
Metaphysics  and  religion  ....... 

God  as  love  and  the  kingdom  of  God  as  the  object  of  God's 
love    .......... 

Freedom  of  the  will  ........ 

The  necessity  of  the  Christian  idea  of  God 

Theory  and  practice.  ....... 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE    PERSON    OF    CHRIST. 

authenticity  of  the  Gospels  ..... 

(piestion  of  the  supernatural        ..... 

divinity  of  Christ — conditions  for  the  solution  of  the 
problem      ......... 

divinity  of  Christ  :  definition       ..... 

CHAPTER  VII. 

THE    ETHICAL    DETERMINATION    OF    THE    CHRISTIAN 

dualism  of  the  Christian  life        .... 

final  authority    ....... 

Biblical  authority — 
I.   Methods  of  study 

II.   The  results        .... 

III.   The  bearings  of  these  results     . 
The  supreme  authority  of  God     . 
variableness  of  Christian  ethics 


The 
The 
The 

The 


The 
The 


PAGE 
140-143 
143-148 
148-150 
150-152 


153-1^1 

161-180 
180-182 

182-186 
186-188 


189-194 
194-202 

202-210 
211-219 

LIFE. 

220-228 
228-246 


The 


231-236 
236-239 

239-243 
243-246 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  AND  THE  STATE. 

The  Christian  ethics  distinguished   by  positiveness.     The 
law  of  duty         ........ 

'I'he  Churcli  and  the  social  question    ..... 

The  Church  and  the  State  ...... 

The  State  in  its  relation  to  the  kingdom  of 

(iod     .......      258-262 

The  Churcli  in  its  relation  to  the  State         .  262 

The  Christian  attitude         ....      262-264 

The  State  and  the  principle  of  proportional 

responsibility        .....  264 

Liberty  and  equality  .....      264-267 

Where  the  res])onsibility  lies        .  .  .      267-269 

The  Church's  opportunity  ....      269-271 

The  kingdom  of  Qod  and  tlie  kingdom  of  the  pope     . 


246-249 


250-256 
256-25S 
258-271 


271-276 


PREFACE. 

This  book  owes  its  being  to  two  causes :  to  the 
invitation  which  I  received  to  deliver  the  Bohlen 
.Lectures  in  the  winter  of  1897  (they  appear  here 
somewhat  amended  and  ampHfied) ;  and  to  the  in- 
spiration I  have  derived  from  Albrecht  Ritschl's 
great  work  on  Justification  and  Reconciliation. 

It  would  not  be  fair  to  make  Ritschl  responsible 
for  all  that  I  have  written.  Considerable  portions 
are  independent  of  Ritschl,  in  certain  parts  I  have 
ventured  to  disagree  with  him,  and  in  the  last  two 
chapters  I  have  entered  upon  subjects  which  Ritschl 
hardly  touches.  Nevertheless,  the  main  trend  of 
thought  and  the  method  are  Ritschlian. 

I  have  not  aimed  at  giving  an  exposition  or  a 
criticism  of  Ritschl.  If  these  pages  have  any 
value,  it  comes  from  the  mental  appropriation  of 
certain  great  truths  in  the  exigencies  of  a  profession 
which  finds  itself  constantly  confronted  and  chal- 
lenged by  the  mystery  of  human  life.  These  things 
are  in  the  air,  and  I  shall  never  forget  my  pleasure 
when,  many  years  ago,  I  found  Ritschl  made  those 
words  of  Christ  the  corner-stone  of  his  system,  which 
had  long  stood  out  in  my  mind  as  perhaps  the  most 
significant  he  uttered  :  "  If  any  man  will  do  his  will,^/ 
he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether  it  be  of  God, 
or  whether  I  speak  of  myself." 


X  PKEFACE. 

Ritschl's  critics  have  been  right  in  distinguishing 
his  attitude  towards  metaphysics  as  the  crucial  point 
of  his  system,  but  have  generally,  I  think,  done  him 
something  less  than  justice.  I  have  become  more  and 
more  assured  in  the  conviction  that  his  position  is 
well  taken.  I  have  endeavoured  to  make  that  posi- 
tion clear,  and  I  should  like  to  hope  that  it  might  be 
my  privilege  to  convince  some,  to  whom  the  prob- 
lems of  theology  are  a  matter  of  vital  concern,  that 
there  is  something  in  Ritschl's  contention  which  is 
worth  their  thoughtful  and  sober  consideration.  The 
system  of  one,  concerning  whom  it  could  be  said 
"  The  joy  of  preaching  the  gospel  entire  and  alone 
has  been  awakened  by  no  theologian  of  the  past  dec- 
ades to  a  greater  degree  than  by  Ritschl  "  (Nippold), 
cannot  be  overlooked  by  the  intelligent  and  ought  to 
be  above  the  sarcasm  with  which  its  critics  have 
sometimes  thought  to  refute  it. 

A  friend,  whose  opinion  I  highly  value,  when  I 
undertook  this  work  wrote  to  me  about  the  subject : 

I  do  not  doubt  you  will  treat  it  not  as  a  finality." 
The  words  set  me  thinking.  A  claim  to  finality 
would  indicate  arrant  conceit  in  whoever  made  it, 
and  yet  we  should  never  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  finality  in  truth.  All  con- 
temporary thought  is  under  the  influence  of  the  his- 
torical spirit,  which  is  dominant  in  the  intellectual 
sphere ;  and  it  is  one  of  the  serious  faults  of  Ritschl's 
writing  that  he  fails  clearly  to  distinguish  between  the 
historical  and   the  philosophical,  or  religious,  ideal. 


PREFACE.  XI 

The  historical  ideal  is  the  complete  and  satisfactory 
exposition  of  the  genetic  development  of  beliefs, 
institutions,  etc.  It  takes  no  account  whatever  of 
the  inherent  truth.  The  philosophical  and  religious 
ideal  on  the  other  hand  is  the  pure  fact,  the  absolute 
truth.  The  two  are  wide  apart,  and  the  theologian 
looks  upon  the  historical  as  a  means  to  the  end ;  he 
will  keep  his  eye  fixed  on  the  "  finality,"  the  abso- 
lute truth. 

It  is  idle  to  suppose  that  we  shall  ever  reach  that 
finality.  I  do  not  share  that  confidence  in  our  men- 
tal powers  which  anticipates  any  close  approach  to 
ultimate  truth.  Our  best  efforts  are  but  a  re-adjust- 
ment of  the  glasses.  We  see  things  in  another  light 
from  those  who  went  before ;  and  those  who  come 
after  us  will  again  see  differently,  perhaps  not  more 
truly,  but  differently,  because  they  will  be  under 
different  influences.  In  one  sphere  only  may  we/'r 
look  for  any  marked  approximation  to  an  ultimate 
standard :  the  ethical. 

But,  whatever  the  prospect,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  a  healthy  spiritual  life  demands  that  we  exert 
to  the  utmost  such  faculties  as  God  has  given  us. 
The  task  is  an  unending  one.  Just  now  there  seems 
to  be  a  call  for  a  forward  movement  in  theology. 
Most  of  our  mental  energy  has  for  the  past  fifty 
years  or  more  been  given  to  the  correcting  of  mis- 
takes and  prejudices.  The  critical  faculty  has  had  its 
day.  But  now  the  problems  of  criticism  are  at  least 
so  far  solved  as  to  have  brought  out  in  clear  relief 
certain  principles,  upon  which  it  is  possible  to  base  a 


-v.i  PREFACE. 

A 

forward  movement.  The  work  of  the  coming  years 
must  be  constructive.  The  task  committed  to  us  is 
to  build  up.  Here  Ritschl's  work  is  undoubtedly 
epoch-making.  To  quote  once  more  from  the  distin- 
guished historian  of  the  modern  Church — himself 
not  altogether  a  friendly  critic:  "  For  a  vast  num- 
ber, who  in  the  age  of  Darwin  had  lost  courage 
for  the  task,  he  has  once  more  confirmed  their  faith 
in  the  mission,  which  theology  again  claims  as  her 
own,  to  be  a  leader  in  the  sphere  of  knowledge." 

Theological  science  to-day  calls  for  the  best  efforts 
of  those  who  believe  in  the  power  of  religion,  and  the 
call  is  not  so  much  for  brilliant  intuitions,  splendid 
guesses  at  the  truth,  as  for  patient,  careful,  pains- 
taking, consecutive  thought.  There  is  no  such  thing 
as  "  finality  "  on  this  earth.  But  none  the  less  is 
there  imposed  upon  us  the  necessity  of  pressing  tow- 
ard the  eoal — 


Jd 


"  Our  hearts  wide  open  on  the  Godward  side." 


INTRODUCTION. 

Christ  began  his  mission  by  preaching  the  advent 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God  :  "  The  time  is  fulfilled  and 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand."  In  other  versions 
it  is  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  But  this  is  probably 
a  modification  of  the  original  expression,  dating  from 
a  later  time  when  the  heavenly  consummation  of  the 
kingdom  became  the  uppermost  thought. 

"  The  Kingdom  of  Christ  "  stands  historically  for 
a  different  conception.  This  term  dates  from  Puritan 
times,  when  it  was  used  to  designate  that  ecclesiasti- 
cal organisation  in  v/hich  Puritanism  found  the  out- 
ward expression  of  Christ's  kingship. 

Our  interest  is  with  the  expression  originally  used 
by  Christ :  the  kingdom  of  God.  Christ  did  not  create  / 
it,  but  found  it  as  an  essential  element  of  the  Jewish 
religion,  and  he  began  his  mission  with  the  full  con- 
sciousness of  being  the  Messiah  appointed  to  bring 
in  the  fulfilment  of  that  which  had  been  foreshad- 
owed by  law  and  prophet  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Hence  the  kingdom  of  God  is,  as  it  were,  the  frame-  '. 
work  of  Christ's  mission.  I  shall  endeavour  to  show 
how  the  several  elements  fit  into  this  framework. 


Our  interest  is  in  what  Christ  did  rather  than  in 

II  in 


what  he  was.     It  is  worth  while  at  the  beginning  of 


Ql/bJ^A,MMn<Aj  cj^  'M  »  vv 


2  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

our  enquiry  to  call  attention  to  the  difference.  One 
view — it  was  especially  the  tendency  of  the  early 
Greek  theology — finds  the  significance  of  Christ  in 
that  which  he  was,  in  his  nature.  The  Incarnation 
became  the  chief  doctrine.  Christ  has  sanctified 
human  nature.  He  became  man  that  man  might 
become  divine.  It  was  a  mystical-materialistic  con- 
ception. God's  nature  joined  itself  to  man's,  took 
upon  itself  humanity  :  this  miraculous  process 
miraculously  changed  man's  nature.  The  recon- 
ciliation between  God  and  man  meant  a  reconcilia- 
tion of  nature  apart  from  will.  Ethical  considera- 
tions were  left  out.  The  consequences  of  this 
theory  were  equally  materialistic.  Religion  came 
to  mean  an  elaborate  system  of  mysteries,  charms, 
ceremonies,  by  which  the  fruition  of  heavenly  things 
was  attained.  The  Church  degenerated  into  a 
mechanism  for  supplying  these  requisites  of  salva- 
tion.    Christianity  became  paganised. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  interest  in  what  Christ  did 
for  man  opens  the  door  for  the  ethical.  His  signifi- 
cance to  the  world  lay  in  the  quality  of  his  actions. 
The  reconciliation  between  God  and  man  is  the 
reconciliation  of  the  will,  and  the  great  spiritual 
truths  assume  their  place  in  the  Christian  system : 
righteousness,  the  love  of  God  in  Christ,  justification, 
faith.  )  To  the  reaction  from  the  Greek  theology 
which  St.  Augustine  inaugurated  we  owe  it  that 
these  have  been  recognised  as  essential  elements  of 
Christian  character.  Our  enquiry  into  the  nature  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  must  follow  these  lines. 


INTRODUCTION.  3 

**  So  soon,"  says  Lowell,  "  as  an  earnest  conviction 
has  cooled  into  a  phrase,  its  work  is  over,  and  the 
best  that  can  be  done  with  it  is  to  bury  it."  Re- 
ligious truth  was  at  first  an  earnest  conviction.  The 
history  of  theology  proves  that  it  has  been  apt  to 
cool  into  a  phrase.  It  then  becomes  a  thing  by  itself, 
apart  from  experience,  which  may  be  dealt  with  ac- 
cording to  its  own  laws.  Theology  degenerates  into 
a  mere  fence  of  logic.  This  makes  so  many  volumes 
of  theological  literature  such  dreary,  profitless,  and 
unconvincing  reading.  Mr.  Gore,  in  the  preface  to  his 
Bampton  Lectures,  states  the  principle  which  alone 
can  guard  us  from  the  danger :  "■  All  right  theory 
emerges  out  of  experience  and  is  the  analysis  of  ex- 
perience .  .  .  the  right  method  of  philosophy  is  not 
a  priori,  abstract,  or  external,  but  is  based  in  each 
department  of  enquiry  upon  a  profound  and  sympa- 
thetic study  of  the  facts."  These  words  point  in  the 
direction  of  a  truth  which  is  of  essential  importance 
for  our  enquiry.  Experience  involves  something 
more  than  intellect,  and  whoever  takes  experience 
for  his  guide  cannot  confine  himself  to  mere  logical 
process.  The  assumption  made  in  behalf  of  an 
unprejudiced  judgment,  that  the  intellect  is  the  only 
arbiter  of  truth,  is  false,  and  the  pretended  disin- 
terestedness in  matters  of  religion  is  an  illusion. 

The  acquisition  of  knowledge  is  made  by  means 
of  mental  judgments.  These  judgments  are  formed 
by  the  mind  working  upon  the  sensations  excited 
in  the  consciousness.  In  the  act  of  judging,  the 
mind  appropriates  or  takes  within  itself  its  sensations. 


•i  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD, 

This  act  of  mental  appropriation  takes  place  in  two 
ways.  In  one  case,  the  feelings  which  are  a  part  of 
the  sensations  are  the  determining  factor;  they  in- 
dicate whether  the  particular  sensations  are  helpful 
and  therefore  acceptable,  or  the  reverse.  I  judge  by 
the  feelings.  In  the  other  case  the  feelings  play  no 
such  part ;  the  sensations  serve  to  classify  objects  ac- 
cording to  their  origin, character,  and  connection  with 
other  objects — as  is  done  in  all  scientific  reasoning. 

The  judgments  by  the  feelings  are  w^hat  Ritschl 
calls  ''  value-judgments."  Their  operation  will  re- 
quire some  further  explanation. 

It  may  be  laid  down  as  a  general  truth  that  in  no 
act  of  attentive  reasoning  is  the  intellect  alone 
operative.  An  act  of  the  pure  intellect  cannot  be 
conceived  except  in  dreams  either  waking  or  sleep- 
ing and  possibly  in  the  case  of  insane  persons.  The 
intellect  used  in  reasoning  is  at  all  times  subject  to 
the  w^ill;  the  wiil.is  the  determining,  guiding  factor 
in  all  mental  operations.^^  But  the  will  never  acts 
unless  prompted  by  a  motive,  and  this  motive  is  in 
Fj^-rff''Vthe  shape  of  a  feeling.  Feeling  is  also  present  as  an 
accompanying  factor  in  every  mental  process.  There 
is  therefore  no  act  of  the  mind  without  will  and 
without  feeling.  For  the  proof  of  this  state  to 
yourself  any  proposition.  Twice  two  is  four:  so 
far  from  the  statement  of  this  truth  being  a  purely 
intellectual  act,  it  is  accompanied  both  by  will  and 
by  feeling.  For  you  would  not  say  it,  unless  you 
were  prompted  to  say  it ;  therefore  you  will  it. 
With   the    statement    also    goes   a    certain    feeling, 


IXTIiODLXTIOX.  5 

namely  one  of  satisfaction,  and  this  is  the  warrant 
that  it  is  true.  We  may  observe  the  absence  of 
this  feeHng  in  the  case  of  a  false  statement.  Say 
to  yourself:  twice  two  is  five — a  distinct  feeling  of 
dissatisfaction  accompanies  that  statement. 

Feeling  enters  into  every  judgment  w^hich  the 
mind  makes.  But  there  is  a  great  difference  in  the 
various  mental  operations.  In  what  we  may  call 
theoretical  knowledge,  in  all  scientific  reasoning,  the 
feelings  are  merely  regulative  :  they  fix  the  attention, 
they  give  their  approbation  or  disapprobation  of  the 
result.  They  have  no  power  in  themselves  to  affect 
the  judgment.  But  there  is  a  large  class  of  mental 
judgments  in  which  the  function  of  the  feeling  in 
the  act  of  judging  is  far  more  important,  in  which 
the  feeling  has  a  great  deal  to  do  in  determining  the 
judgment.  This  may  be  readily  illustrated  by  the 
moral  judgments.  It  is  wrong  to  kill.  In  so  far  as 
this  judgment  is  addressed  to  the  intellect,  it  is  put 
in  terms  of  the  intellect.  It  is  a  proposition  sub- 
mitted to  your  mind  like  any  other  proposition.  But 
in  the  act  of  mental  appropriation  by  which  that 
statement  becomes  a  subjective  judgment,  what  is 
the  determining  influence  ?  It  is  not  intellectual,  it 
is  moral.  This  is  therefore  a  value-judgment  proper, 
in  which  the  value  of  the  moral  feelings  which  go 
with  the  mental  process  determine  the  acceptation 
of  the  statement  as  truth.  You  believe  the  state- 
ment because  you  believe  your  feelings. 

It  is  because  of  this  peculiarity  in  the  quality  of 
moral  judgments  that  w^e  differentiate  moral  truth 


6  THE    KINGDOM    OF    (iOl). 

from  theoretical  truth.  It  is  by  an  analogous  pecu- 
liarity of  our  religious  judgments  that  we  also  differ- 
entiate religious  truth.  The  value-judgments  hold 
in  religion  as  well  as  in  morals.  In  religious  judg- 
ments our  feelings  not  only  may,  but  must  be  given 
decisive  weight.  It  is  a  fundamental  mistake,  an 
error  which  has  caused  the  greatest  confusion  of 
thought,  to  set  up  the  law  of  theoretical  knowledge 
as  the  law  of  the  human  spirit  in  all  its  various  func- 
tions. An  unbiassed,  unprejudiced,  purely  objective 
and  intellectual  proof  of  Christianity  has  been  chal- 
lenged by  its  enemies  and  eagerly  sought  by  its 
champions,  with  equal  disregard  of  the  truth  that 
the  faith  which  prompts  the  one  to  defend  religion 
and  the  disbelief  which  moves  the  other  to  attack  it 
are  not  the  result  of  logical  methods  of  reasoning. 
Therefore  the  efforts  of  the  one  to  uphold  and  of  the 
other  to  destroy  faith  by  such  methods  must  prove 
alike  disappointing. 

The  difference  between  the  logical  method  of 
dealing  with  religious  truth  and  the  one  which  is 
here  advocated  can  hardly  be  overestimated.  I 
have  endeavoured  to  show  the  nature  of  moral  judg- 
ments. Religious  judgments  also  are  influenced 
by  the  moral  feelings.  But  the  value-judgments 
which  especially  belong  to  the  religious  sphere  are 
different.  Their  exact  nature  will,  I  trust,  be  made 
clear  in  the  course  of  this  enquiry.  At  this  point 
it  will  be  proper  merely  to  indicate  the  objects  with 
which  the  religious  judgments  have  to  do  and  to 
point  out  the  form  of  their  operation. 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

The  objects  with  which  an  enquirer  into  the 
nature  of  the  Christian  religion  will  concern  himself 
are  such  as:  God,  Christ,  the  eternal  life,  heaven, 
salvation,  justification,  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Theology  defines  them,  seeks  to  determine  the 
modes  of  their  operation  and  to  harmonise  them. 
Theoretical  enquiry  pretends  to  have  no  personal 
interest  in  these  things  and  undertakes  to  define 
and  determine  them  according  to  their  nature,  inde- 
pendently of  any  value  w^hich  they  may  have  for 
man.  The  theological  enquirer  cannot  set  aside 
this  value  and  his  interest  in  it ;  to  him  this  very 
interest  is  a  factor  in  determining  and  defining  the 
objects.  He  does  not  much  care  to  know  what  God 
may  be  in  himself,  but  he  wants  to  know  what  God 
\s  for  him.  That  which  God  is  for  man  is  the  thing 
upon  which  he  fixes  his  attention.  If  I  believe  in 
God,  I  believe  in  him,  not  because  the  metaphysician 
has  proved  to  me  the  existence  of  God,  but  because 
I  need  God,  because  God  means  something  for  me. 
This  for  me  represents  the  contents  of  the  value- 
judgment  which  I  form  of  God.  The  same  is  true 
of  other  objects  of  theological  interest. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  we  are  rarely  con- 
scious of  our  mental  operation  in  forming  judgments, 
but  theological  differentiates  itself  from  theoretical 
or  metaphysical  reasoning  by  being  permeated  by 
the  sense  of  value  inherent  in  the  things  about 
which  it  reasons.  The  difference  goes  to  the  found- 
ation of  our  view^s  of  religion. 

The  method  w^hich  is  here  advocated  finds  its  con- 


8  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

firmation  in  the  words  of  Christ,  St.  John  vii.  17: 
"  If  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the 
doctrine,  whether  it  be  of  God  or  whether  I  speak  of 
myself."  Christ  here  makes  the  exercise  of  the  will 
a  factor  in  probing  the  truth  of  his  doctrine.  It  will 
be  readily  seen  that  the  application  of  this  principle 
is  incompatible  with  the  prosecution  of  mere  logical 
or  intellectual  methods  of  enquiry  into  the  nature  of 
Christianity.^ 

It  follows  from  this  that  no  judgment  can  properly 
be  pronounced  upon  Christianity  from  without. 
Whoever  would  have  a  clear  perception  of  what 
Christianity  is  must  have  measured  by  his  own  ex- 
perience its  spiritual  value.  The  experience  of  this 
value,  the  appreciation  of  what  Christianity  is  for 
man,  one  gets  only  as  a  Christian,  as  a  follower  of 
Christ.  To  occupy  any  other  position  would  be  to 
yield  to  the  fatal  illusion  which  under  the  name  of 
historical  disinterestedness  has  distorted  the  religious 
judgment. 

^  "  We  see  then  as  we  feel — 

And  in  your  judgment,  Sir,  the  mind's  repose 

On  evidence  is  not  to  be  ensured 

By  act  of  naked  reason.     Moral  truth 

Is  no  mechanic  structure,  built  by  rule  : 

And  which,  once  built,  retains  a  steadfast  shape 

And  undisturbed  proportions  ;  but  a  thing 

Subject,  you  deem,  to  vital  accidents  ; 

And,  like  the  water-lily,  lives  and  thrives. 

Whose  root  is  fixed  in  stable  earth,  whose  head 

Floats  on  the  tossing  waves." 

The  Excursion,  Book  V. 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

There  are  objections  to  this  method  which  we  may 
briefly  glance  at.  It  will  be  said  that  it  makes  sel- 
fishness the  criterion  of  truth.  The  lack  of  a  proper 
discrimination  in  the  use  of  this  word  has  been  the 
cause  of  much  mischief.  Without  some  sort  of 
selfishness  life  would  be  absolutely  impossible.  If 
to  exalt  the  value  of  my  individual  personal  life  is 
selfish,  then  Christianity  is  the  most  selfish  religion ; 
for  Christ  teaches  the  infinite  worth  of  human  life. 
Selfishness,  in  the  bad  sense,  consists  in  the  opposi- 
tion of  the  individual  to  the  common  interests  of 
humanity.  What  may  be  called  Christian  selfish- 
ness is  self-respect  and  a  high  valuation  of  my  own 
personality.  So  far  from  being  opposed  to  the  com- 
mon interests,  it  is  inconceivable  apart  from  a  due 
regard  for  the  interests  of  others. 

Some  slight  reflection  will  make  clear  the  fruitless- 
ness  of  the  efforts  which  are  made  to  reduce  life  to 
what  is  conceived  as  pure  unselfishness.  When  one 
has  divested  himself  of  all  "  selfish  "  motives  and 
has  supplanted  the  interest  in  self  by  the  engrossing 
interest  in  others'  welfare,  there  remains  as  an  in- 
eradicable element  of  the  process  the  inner  satisfac- 
tion with  one's  actions.  This  is  the  only  conceivable 
motive  of  the  most  unselfish  conduct.  So  it  is  selfish 
after  all.  Only  the  person  tries  to  deceive  himself 
into  believing  that  he  has  cast  self  aside.  No  wonder 
that  the  result  is  commonly  the  most  offensive  form 
of  selfishness  :  spiritual  self-righteousness. 

Again,  it  will  be  objected  that  this  method  makes 
religious  judgment  a  mere  subjective  matter,  subject 


10  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

to  the  caprice  and  the  whims  of  the  individual. 
There  is  here  some  confusion  of  thought.  What 
mental  process  is  there  which  is  not  "  subjective  "  ? 
How  is  any  judgment  of  the  individual  conceivable 
except  as  subjective,  that  is,  as  formed  through  the 
processes  of  his  own,  not  other's  mind  ?  It  may  be 
urged  that  the  feelings  and  the  will,  upon  which 
this  theory  lays  the  emphasis,  are  more  subject  to 
vagaries  and  aberrations  than  the  intellect.  But  in 
view  of  the  existing  diversities  in  matters  of  religion 
which  are  mere  differences  of  opinion,  this  can 
hardly  be  maintained. 

The  true  bearing  of  this  objection  on  the  ground 
of  subjectivity  lies  in  another  direction.  The  con- 
ception of  belief  has  undergone  a  considerable 
change  in  the  Christian  Church.  In  the  early  ages 
it  was  the  belief  in  certain  life-saving  truths.  The 
faith  in  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  the  trust  in  a 
God  of  love,  the  father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ : 
such  were  the  beliefs  that  sustained  the  early  Christ- 
ians in  the  battle  with  the  world.  But  the  Ttiaris 
slowly  gave  way  to  the  yj^a)(ji3.  The  conclusions 
drawn  from  the  first  articles  of  faith  became  more 
and  more  elaborated,  and  a  belief  in  these  theologi- 
cal elaborations  became  a  condition  of  membership 
in  the  Christian  Church.  Ordinary  minds  were  in- 
capable of  independent  judgment.  Nevertheless 
they  gave  their  assent,  and  this  they  did  by  express- 
ing their  belief  in  a  creed.  This  meant  for  the  vast 
majority  of  people  the  substitution  for  the  belief  in 
truth  of  a  belief  in  a  belief.     The  belief  itself  became 


INTRODUCTIOX  11 

the  object  of  credence ;  and  faith  has  ever  since 
been  commonly  judged  as  the  act  of  assent  to  a 
creed,  the  belief  in  a  belief.  Contrasted  with  this, 
it  is  acknowledged  that  the  theory  here  advocated 
has  a  tendency  to  make  religion  "  subjective,"  in 
the  sense  of  bringing  the  great  Christian  truths 
directly  home  to  the  mind.' 

Christianity  cannot  be  appreciated  in  its  true  na- 
ture, unless  it  is  understood  that  the  sphere  of  the 
spiritual  lies  above  and  beyond  the  natural,  and  that 
it  has  its  own  laws  which  are  different  from  the  laws 
of  nature.  The  conflicts  between  science  and  religion 
have  been  caused  by  the  false  assumption  that  the 
laws  which  govern  in  that  limited  portion  of  the 
universe,  which  we  call  the  natural  world,  are  valid 
for  the  entire  universe.  Upon  this  assumption  sci- 
ence has  demanded  of  religion  proofs  for  the  validity 
of  its  claims.  Such  proofs,  let  it  be  understood, 
religion  is  unable  to  give  and  should  not  attempt  to 
give.  For  what  would  the  attempt  mean  ?  It 
would  imply  the  possibility  of  measuring  Christian- 
ity by  a  standard  belonging  to  another  sphere  whose 

'  Ernest  Renan  had  a  certain  realisation  of  the  truth  of  the  posi- 
tion here  taken.  No  person,  he  claims,  can  be  a  judge  of  Christian- 
ity who  has  not  himself  been  a  Christian.  But,  he  adds,  he  must 
have  ceased  to  be  a  Christian  to  be  an  impartial  judge.  On  the 
score  of  disinterestedness  such  a  position  has  no  claim  superior  to  the 
one  here  taken.  The  person  who  has  made  up  his  mind  that  Christ- 
ianity is  untrue  is  not  more  impartial  than  the  believer.  It  is  an 
interesting  study  to  discover  the  prejudice  which  clouded  the  vision 
of  so  eminent  a  critic  of  Christianity  as  Renan.  A  glance  at  his  pict- 
ure does  it  in  his  case.  It  explains  the  psychological  puzzle  of  the 
author  of  the  Vie  de  Jesus  and  L'  Abhesse  dc  Jouarre. 


12  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

laws  are  different  from  those  of  its  own.  As  well 
mi^^ht  the  musician  measure  the  value  of  musical 
compositions  with  the  yard-stick.  Philosophy  has 
its  proper  sphere  and  the  laws  belonging  to  it.  Sci- 
ence has  its  sphere,  and  the  law\s  of  that  sphere  are 
absolutely  binding  to  the  scientific  enquirer.  But 
the  sphere  and  the  law^s  of  philosophy  are  not  those 
of  religion,  and  the  sphere  and  the  laws  of  science 
are  not  those  of  religion. 

It  is  a  common  fault  of  theological  reasoning  that 
it  fails  to  grasp  this  distinction.  When  Christ 
taught  the  transcendent  value  of  the  soul,  the  essen- 
tial difference  between  man  and  the  world,  he  set 
before  man  a  new  truth  of  the  most  far-reaching 
character.  Of  that  truth  pagan  philosophy  had  no 
conception.  But  Christian  theology  would  seem 
to  have  been  influenced  more  by  Greek  philosophy 
in  its  attempt  to  explain  the  Cosmos  than  by  the 
new^  truth  of  Christ.  It  gave  to  pagan  philosophy 
a  home  in  the  Christian  system  and  strove  for  the 
knowledge  of  the  conditions  of  all  being  after  the 
methods  of  the  ancient  wisdom.  At  the  top  of  the 
system  thus  constructed  it  added  the  truths  of 
Redemption.  This  incongruous  mixture  of  pagan 
cosmology  and  Christian  soteriology  was  accepted 
as  Christian  philosophy.  But  it  was  Christian  only 
in  the  sense  of  being  dressed  with  a  few  Christian 
truths ;  it  was  not  Christian  in  that  it  neglected  the 
fundamental  distinction  w^hich  Christianity  made 
between  man  and  nature,  between  the  Ethos  and 
the  Cosmos,  and  the  inevitable  consequences  which 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

this    distinction    entails    upon    our   views    of    the 
world. 

These  conditions  of  theological  investigation  are 
fundamental  and  affect  the  whole  conception  of 
Christian  truth.  Just  as  with  natural  objects  the 
truth  of  our  perceptions  often  depends  upon  the  light 
in  which  we  see  them,  so  in  theology.  It  is  of  the  first 
importance  that  at  the  opening  of  a  theological  en- 
quiry one  get  into  the  proper  light.  If  you  have 
succeeded  in  doing  that,  half  the  battle  is  won,  the 
rest  will  follow  naturally.  And  this  first  condition  is 
satisfied  by  learning  to  appreciate  the  essential  differ- 
ence between  theoretical  and  religious  knowledge. 

There  remains  one  more  subject  which  I  must 
here  treat  of,  which  is  also  fundamental  to  our  inves- 
tigation :  the  proper  theory  of  cognition  and  of  psy- 
chology. When  we  say  we  know  a  thing,  what  do 
we  mean  ?  Plato  taught  that  a  thing  is  composed 
of  a  "  substance  "  and  the  "  accidents."  This  Pla- 
tonic '  *  substance  ' '  was  a  delusion  of  the  intellect.  It 
had  its  origin  in  that  process  of  unification,  by  which 
the  mind  combines  the  effects  upon  the  various  sense 
organs  produced  by  contact  with  an  object. 

Kant  showed  that  the  thing  in  itself  is,  in  its 
nature,  unknowable ;  all  that  we  can  know  is  phe- 
nomena. We  know  the  thing  itself  only  as  the 
cause  of  the  phenomena  by  which  it  comes  into  con- 
tact with  our  faculties.  This  theory  of  cognition 
forbids  any  further  enquiry  into  the  nature  of  the 
thing  itself.     The  application  of  this  metaphysical 


14  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

doctrine  to  theology  is  of  the  first  importance. 
Scarcely  anything  has  been  so  productive  of  evil  in 
theological  speculation  as  the  Platonic  doctrine  of 
universals.  These  universals  were  removed  from 
human  observation,  but  not  from  human  specula- 
tion. Accordingly  fancy  was  free  to  play  with  them 
at  will.  Any  absurdity  might  be  predicated  of  the 
"  substance,"  however  contradictory  to  the  known 
laws  of  the  accidents.  The  baneful  influence  of  this 
theory  is  manifest  in  its  application  to  the  doctrine 
of  God.  Men  were  not  satisfied  to  know  God  as 
Christ  revealed  him.  They  sought  to  fathom  the 
reality  underneath  the  divine  manifestations,  and 
lost  themselves  in  fruitless  speculations.' 

With  the  acceptance  of  the  Kantian  theory  of 
cognition  we  impose  upon  ourselves  certain  limita- 
tions of  knowledge  which  it  is  highly  necessary  in  a 
theological  investigation  to  bear  in  mind. 

Theology  demands  not  only  a  correct  epistemology, 
but  also  a  correct  psychology.  Analogous  to  the  dis- 
tinction between  substance  and  accident  is  the  theory 
which  ascribes  to  the  soul  a  life  behind  its  activities. 
Back  of  the  feeling,  the  will  and  the  knowing,  is  the 
soul  itself.  Not  only  is  the  will  of  man  sanctified 
and  his  mind  inspired  and  his  feelings  transmuted 

'  The  application  of  the  Platonic  theory  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Holy  Communion  is  the  most  striking  instance  of  its  abuse.  Theo- 
logical caprice  has  fairly  run  riot  in  dealing  with  the  "  substance" 
and  the  "  attributes  "  of  Christ's  body.  Self-contradictory  miracles, 
which  no  sane  mind  could  assert  of  anything  real  that  had  ever  been 
seen  in  the  world,  were  accepted  with  perfect  equanimity  when 
applied  to  that  mysterious  entity,  a  "  substance." 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

by  the  influence  of  God,  but  behind  these  is  the 
union  of  the  soul  itself  with  the  divine,  and  mani- 
festations of  this  union  are  sought  outside  of  the 
soul's  ordinary  activities. 

But  we  cannot  get  to  the  soul  behind  its  activities. 
As  soon  as  we  know  anything  of  the  soul,  it  is  the 
soul  as  feeling,  willing,  or  knowing.  If  God  is 
united  to  the  soul,  the  only  intelligible  meaning  that 
can  be  attached  to  such  a  statement  is  that  God  has 
sanctified  the  faculties  of  the  soul,  producing  har- 
mony and  peace  where  before  was  discord  and  un- 
rest. The  soul  receives  no  impression  as  passive. 
Every  impression  received  is  met  by  a  counter- 
activity  of  the  soul  itself.  The  only  way  the  soul 
appropriates  impressions  is  by  having  its  own  facul- 
ties stirred  to  activity.  The  pain  which  the  soul 
feels  is  conceived  only  as  its  own  activity ;  so  with 
all  other  sensations.  Therefore  the  attitude  of  the 
soul  towards  the  grace  of  God  is  not  simply  recep- 
tive ;  grace  is  not  poured  into  the  soul  as  water  into 
a  vessel.  Such  a  process  is  inconceivable.  The 
grace  of  God  in  the  human  soul  becomes  the  activ- 
ity of  the  soul  itself.  Theology  therefore  has  im- 
posed upon  it  the  task  of  tracing  the  dealings  of 
God  with  man  in  the  religious  and  ethical  activities 
of  the  soul.  We  know  the  soul  only  in  one  of  its 
functions,  as  feeling,  willing,  or  knowing.' 

'  Some  psychologists,  I  believe,  reduce  the  soul  to  a  series  of 
"  psychic  processes."  But  they  are  not  agreed.  Until  the  matter  is 
settled,  we  will  retain  the  old  phraseology.  If  necessary,  we  shall 
learn  without  much  difficulty  to  say:  "My  psychic  processes  are 
athirst  for  God,  yea  even  for  the  living  God." 


16  THE    KINGDOM   OF    GOD. 

I  have  said  that  to  attempt  to  prove  Christianity, 
in  the  ordinary  meaning  of  that  word,  is  to  attempt 
the  impossible.  It  is  a  Sisyphus  labour  upon  which 
the  Christian  mind  has  spent  untold  effort.  The 
facts  of  the  Christian  revelation  may  be  fortified  by 
evidence;  certain  considerations  may  be  adduced,  as 
Bishop  Butler  has  done,  to  make  the  Christian  truth 
appear  in  accord  with  the  system  of  the  universe  as 
it  is  known  to  us.  All  this  does  not  lift  Christian 
truth  beyond  the  sphere  of  the  probable.  But  the 
faith  which  is  not  raised  above  the  balancing  of  proba- 
bilities is  not  a  Christian  faith.  Hence  this  sort  of 
effort  has  always  been  dissatisfying  and  discouraging 
to  earnest  enquiring  minds.'  To  gain  the  strong 
conviction  which  reaches  the  level  of  true  Christian 
faith  another  way  must  be  taken.  It  must  be  by 
a  spiritual  appropriation  of  Christianity,   as  Christ 

'  That  view  of  religion,  which  does  not  get  beyond  the  "  proba- 
bility "  stage,  where  the  great  object  is  to  make  yourself  "  safe" 
with  God,  rests  upon  a  fundamental  misconception.  There  is  noth- 
ing more  dreary  than  the  picture  of  religion  drawn  by  Arthur  Hugh 
Clough.     That  which  should  be  a  support  becomes  a  burden  : 

"  To  spend  uncounted  years  of  pain, 
Again,  again  and  yet  again, 
In  working  out  in  heart  and  brain 

The  problem  of  our  being  here  ; 
To  gather  facts  from  far  and  near, 
Upon  the  mind  to  hold  them  clear, 
And,  knowing  more  may  yet  appear, 
Unto  one's  latest  breath  to  fear 
The  premature  result  to  draw — 
Is  this  the  object,  end  and  law, 

And  purpose  of  our  being  here?  " 


INTRODUCTION.  l7 

pointed  out:  *'  If  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall 
know  of  the  doctrine  whether  it  be  of  God  or  whether 
I  speak  of  myself."  If  any  proof  of  Christianity  is 
possible,  it  can  be  only  by  showing  that  the  highest 
aspirations  of  man  are  satisfied  by  Christianity  and 
by  that  alone. 

We  are  on  one  side  of  our  nature  bound  to  the 
lower  creation.  The  same  biological  laws  hold  sway 
over  us  as  over  the  brute,  the  same  laws  of  growth 
and  of  death,  the  same  struggle  for  existence  and 
the  same  survival  of  the  fittest.  Turn  your  face  in 
that  direction,  study  man  in  his  lower  nature,  and 
you  recoil  with  horror  as  the  picture  reveals  itself  to 
you  of  man's  life  on  earth.  Looked  at  from  this 
point  of  view,  his  history  is  little  different  from  that 
of  the  other  animals:  universal  selfishness,  universal 
struggle.  No  wonder  that  men  who  have  looked 
only  on  that  side  of  the  picture  have  said  in  despair, 
that  as  man  shares  his  life  with  the  brute,  so  he  will 
share  the  brute's  fate.  But  that  is  not  all,  there  is 
another  side.  Whatever  the  ties  are  which  bind 
man  to  the  earth,  there  is  also  an  affinity  with 
heaven.  If  man  is  subject  to  the  physical  and 
chemical  and  biological  laws  which  govern  the  uni- 
verse, there  are  also  other  laws  which  reach  down 
into  his  life  from  a  higher  sphere.  You  must  take 
the  whole  of  man,  not  one  part  of  him.  If  you  tell 
me  that  the  laws  of  biology  interpret  his  physical 
life,  you  must  also  find  the  laws  which  will  interpret 
to  me  his  higher  life.  Tell  me  whence  his  aspira- 
tions.    Tell  me  the  meaning  of  that 


18  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

"  .     .     .     Vexing,  forward  reaching  sense, 
Of  some  more  noble  permanence." 

Explain  to  me  the  spiritual  life  of  man.  That  view 
of  man  which  looks  only  to  one  side  of  his  na- 
ture is  miserably  one-sided.  The  whole  of  man's 
life  is  greater  than  the  laws  of  his  physical  being. 
There  is  in  us  an  ineradicable  sense  that  God  could 
never  have  made  man  with  these  aspirations  for 
something  higher  than  this  life  affords,  only  in  the 
end  to  bring  him  to  utter  confusion.  Christianity  is 
to  us  the  warrant  that  these  feelings  are  true;  and 
if  there  is  any  proof  which  one  can  give  to  another 
of  the  Christian  religion,  it  can  only  be  the  bringing 
up  of  man  to  the  meeting  point  of  man  with  God  in 
Christ,  the  setting  forth  of  Christianity  as  the  one 
and  only  satisfaction  for  the  soul's  truest,  deepest 
needs. 

It  follows  from  this  that  theology  has  its  task  dis- 
tinctly defined.  It  is  simply  the  analysis  of  the 
common  Christian  faith.  Guided  by  this  principle, 
I  shall  try  to  discover  the  outlines  of  that  kingdom 
of  God  which  Christ  founded. 


CHAPTER   I. 

THE    RELIGIOUS  DETERMINATION   OF   THE 
CHRISTIAN    LIFE. 

The  most  cursory  examination  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment will  make  it  evident  that  the  revelation  of  truth 
contained  in  it  is  not  homogeneous.  There  are  ele- 
ments in  the  teaching,  both  of  Christ  and  of  the 
apostles,  which  are  not  reduced  to  unity.  The 
ethical  teaching  of  Christ  is  patent  on  every  page  of 
the  gospels.  But  this  ethical  element  does  not  ex- 
haust the  significance  of  Christianity.  Immediately 
following  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  with  its  clear 
moral  teaching,  we  find  the  story  of  the  paralytic. 
It  contains  no  ethical  element,  but  something  which 
has  an  entirely  different  bearing:  the  forgiveness  of 
sins.  A  little  farther  on  Jesus  teaches  his  disciples 
to  pray:  **  forgive  us  our  trespasses." 

Forgiveness  is  an  element  in  the  revelation  of 
Jesus  clearly  distinct  from  the  ethical.  It  has  refer- 
ence not  so  much  to  doing  as  to  being;  it  has  no 
direct  application  to  conduct,  but  to  a  state.  Many 
other  words  of  Jesus  have  reference  to  a  state  in 
man.  When  we  hear  him  calling  to  men,  "  Come 
unto  me  all  ye  who  are  weary  and  heavy  laden," 

19 


20  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

there  is  no  question  of  right  doing  but  of  right  be- 
ing. So,  too,  with  the  numerous  references  in  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John  to  the  "  eternal  life  "  :  "  This  is 
eternal  life — says  Jesus — that  they  might  know  thee 
the  only  true  God  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou 
hast  sent  "  ;  "  I  am  come  that  they  might  have  life. " 
And  again,  when  he  prayed:  "  That  they  all  may 
be  one ;  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee, 
that  they  may  be  one  in  us."  Or  when  in  the  last 
discourse  he  promises  peace  and  joy  :  *'  Peace  I  leave 
with  you,  my  peace  I  give  unto  you,"  "  These 
things  have  I  spoken  unto  you  that  my  joy  might 
remain  in  you,  and  that  your  joy  might  be  full." 
Finally  we  have  those  expressions  of  our  Lord  assert- 
ing a  purpose  to  his  life  and  death,  whose  meaning  a 
mere  ethical  explanation  is  wholly  inadequate  to 
exhaust:  **  The  Son  of  man  came  to  give  his  life  a 
ransom  for  many,"  '*  This  is  my  body  which  is  given 
for  you." 

When  we  turn  from  the  gospels  to  the  epistles, 
we  find  this  side  of  Christ's  teaching  fully  repre- 
sented. With  St.  Paul  it  is  the  main  interest  of 
Christianity.  Something  had  freed  him  from  the 
bondage  of  his  former  life;  this  something  was  not 
a  code  of  morals ;  he  felt  himself  redeemed  from  a 
slavish  obedience  to  a  law  into  a  state  of  liberty  in 
which  he  now  glories.  Christ  now  lives  in  him,  he 
is  justified,  he  is  reconciled:  such  expressions  find 
no  explanation  from  mere  ethical  premises.  Read 
the  end  of  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans:    "  In   all   these   things  we  are  more  than 


RELIGIOUS    DETERMINATION    OF    CHRISTIAN    LIFE.      21 

conquerors  through  him  that  loved  us.  For  I  am 
persuaded  that  neither  death,  nor  Hfe,  nor  angels, 
nor  principalities,  nor  powers,  nor  things  present, 
nor  things  to  come,  nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any 
other  creature,  shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the 
love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,"  or 
the  closing  words  of  the  third  chapter  of  First 
Corinthians:  "  All  things  are  yours;  w^hether  Paul, 
or  Apollos,  or  Cephas,  or  the  world,  or  life,  or  death, 
or  things  present,  or  things  to  come ;  all  are  yours ; 
and  ye  are  Christ's,  and  Christ  is  God's  ":  no  one 
can  read  such  language  and  doubt  that  there  entered 
into  the  life  of  the  great  apostle  as  chief  determining 
factor  something  which  cannot  be  summed  up  in  a 
moral  code. 

Turning  to  other  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
we  find  that  St.  Paul  is  by  no  means  isolated  in  his 
conception  of  the  nature  of  Christianity.  We  meet 
with  such  terms  as  "  salvation  "  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  "  propitiation  "  in  those  of  St.  John, 
and  the  frequent  references  to  "  overcoming  "  in 
the  Revelation — all  of  them  pointing  to  an  element 
in  the  religion  of  Jesus  which  is  something  more 
than  ethical. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  present  an  exhaustive  sum- 
mary of  this  factor  in  the  New  Testament  teaching. 
It  is  too  evident  to  need  this.  Or  it  ought  to  be 
too  evident  —  too  evident  for  the  neglect  with 
which  it  is  not  infrequently  passed  over.  When 
Matthew  Arnold  tells  us  that  "  the  object  of  re- 
ligion   is    conduct,"    that     religion    is    "  morality 


22  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

touched  by  emotion,"  '  one  is  at  a  loss  to  under- 
stand how  he,  Bible-critic  as  he  was,  could  have 
ignored  all  the  religious  element  as  distinct  from 
the  ethical  in  the  Old  and  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. To  pretend  to  explain  Christianity,  while 
neglecting  and  setting  aside  that  religious  factor 
which  was  the  strongest  motive  power  in  those 
who  have  left  the  most  lasting  impress  upon  the 
spiritual  life  of  mankind,  a  St.  Paul,  a  St.  Augus- 
tine, a  Luther;  not  even  to  attempt  to  account  for 
the  influences  which  most  powerfully  swayed  these 
men:  surely  this  is  a  strange  historical  criticism.^ 

How  perfectly  shallow  a  merely  ethical  conception 
of  religion  is  will  become  still  more  evident  by 
another  consideration.  We  have  a  word  in  modern 
language  for  which  there  is  no  equivalent  in  the 
ancient  tongues :  that  word  is  character.  Character 
is  distinctly  a  Christian  conception ;  because  Chris- 
tianity alone  furnishes  the  elements  for  its  formation. 
The  ancient  world  had  very  pronounced  ethical 
ideas,  but  no  combination  of  ethical  qualities  makes 
up  character.  You  may  conceive  of  a  man  as  being 
just,  kind,  liberal,  upright,  and  add  all  the  virtues 
to  the  catalogue,  and  yet  the  sum  of  them  all  will 
fail  to  reach  the  fulness  of  what  is  meant  when  you 
speak  of  a  man  of  character.     The  word  is  unex- 

^  LiteraUire  and  Dogma^  chap.  i. 

'^  Compare  for  a  piece  of  historical  criticism  the  following  from 
Literature  and  Dogtna  (p.  78,  Macmillan's  edition) :  "  Jesus  Christ's 
new  and  different  way  of  putting  things  was  the  secret  of  his  suc- 
ceeding where  the  prophets  failed."  One  rubs  his  eyes  and  reads 
again.      lUit  there  it  stands. 


KELIGIOUS    DETERMINATION    OF    CIIHISTIAN    LIFE.      23 

plained  upon  the  atomistic  theory ;  it  implies  unity, 
an  unfolding  of  life  from  within  ;  it  points  to  a  centre 
of  the  spiritual  nature.  The  use  of  the  word  char- 
acter in  popular  language  is  a  striking  evidence  of 
the  moulding  of  our  forms  of  thought  through  the 
influence  of  Christianity.  The  conception  of  a  state 
of  being  antecedent  to  conduct,  of  a  something  in 
man  from  which  conduct  springs,  a  conception  which 
owes  its  origin  entirely  to  Christianity,  has  become 
so  at  home  in  popular  thought  as  to  be  incorporated 
in  every  day  language. 

We  observe  furthermore  about  this  word  character, 
that  there  is  a  tendency  to  narrow  its  meaning,  so 
that  it  is  often  used  as  implying  that  which  is  praise- 
worthy. We  speak  of  a  man  "  of  character,"  mean- 
ing thereby  strong  or  good  character;  or  we  say  of 
another,  "he  is  a  man  of  no  character."  In  this 
use  of  the  word  it  comes  very  near  in  meaning  to  the 
expression  used  by  Christ,  already  referred  to :  "  the 
eternal  life."  We  have  been  largely  accustomed  to 
think  of  the  eternal  life  as  something  of  the  future, 
something  different  from  this  life,  and  yet  Christ's 
assertions  are  most  pronounced  to  the  effect  that  it 
is  of  the  present,  a  life  for  us  to  enter  now :  "  This  is 
eternal  life,  that  they  might  know  thee,  the  only 
true  God  " — "  He  that  heareth  my  word,  and  be- 
lieveth  on  him  that  sent  me,  hat/i  everlasting  life — 
is  passed  from  death  unto  life  "  (St.  John  xvii.  3, 
V.  24).  The  difference  between  the  earthly  life  and 
the  eternal  life  is  not  one  of  quantity  or  duration, 
but  of  quality. 


24:  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

The  word  life  in  its  meaning  ranges  over  a  most 
extensive  scale.  We  apply  to  the  worm  crawling 
on  the  ground  and  to  the  highest  perfection  of  Christ- 
ian manhood  equally  the  term  life ;  but  how  differ- 
ent is  life  from  life ;  how  many  the  gradations  from 
the  lowest  form,  the  simplest  structure,  through  the 
life  of  instinct,  of  intelligence,  of  dawning  con- 
science, of  the  perfected  moral  faculty,  to  that 
life  which  has  attained  to  the  highest  nobility  of 
character,  to  the  full  strength  of  independent  fear- 
less manhood,  such  as  we  see  it  only  in  a  few  illus- 
trious examples.  These  gradations  of  life  make  us 
understand  something  of  the  truth  underlying  the 
expression  "  eternal  life."  In  comparison  with  all 
other  life,  it  is  the  highest,  most  perfect  conceivable. 

Only  when  we  have  grasped  the  conception  which 
Christ  embodied  in  the  term  ''  eternal  life,"  are  we 
in  a  position  to  understand  something  of  human  life 
on  its  God-ward  side.  The  conception  of  religion 
as  a  set  of  rules  for  conduct  seems  beautifully  simple. 
But  is  human  life  simple  ?  The  more  we  know  of 
human  nature,  the  more  we  stand  in  awe  of  its 
mystery.  The  deeper  the  insight  into  that  strangest 
of  earthly  phenomena,  the  human  heart,  the  more 
do  we  learn  to  appreciate  the  fact  that  there  is  a 
simplicity  of  shallowness. 

There  are  two  radically  divergent  views  of  life.' 
Tlic  one  looks  upon  the  surface,  the  other  pene- 
trates   into    the  underlying   realities.      One  man   is 

'  It  is  a  pity  we  have  no  word  for  the  (jerman  "  Weltvorstellung." 


RELIGIOUS   DETERMINATION    OF    CHRISTIAN    LIFE.      25 

fascinated  by  the  mechanism  of  the  world ;  to  under- 
stand its  working  is  his  absorbing  object.  To  another 
the  things  of  sense  lack  abiding  reality ;  he  feels  for 
the  eternal  underneath.  The  one  man  is  satisfied  with 
secondary  causes;  to  him,  what  he  sees,  the  mani- 
fest connection  between  cause  and  effect,  is  sufficient. 
The  other  is  always  straining  for  the  first  cause ;  he 
feels  himself  in  the  presence  of  a  great  mystery;  he 
cannot  rest  till  he  has  found  a  clue  to  the  problem. 
Fundamentally,  the  distinction  between  these  two 
divergent  views  of  life  is  this :  God  and  no  God. 
Not  that  the  man  who  is  a  secularist  in  his  interpre- 
tation of  the  world  necessarily  disbelieves  in  God ; 
but  if  he  does  not  bring  his  God  to  the  explanation 
of  the  world,  if  he  does  not  see  the  world  around 
him  in  God's  light,  then  he  is  practically  without 
God.  The  theoretical  acknowledgment  of  an  abso- 
lute being,  or  by  whatever  other  name  you  may 
choose  to  call  it,  is  of  no  value.  Either  explain  life 
through  God,  or  put  God  aside  where  Jupiter  and 
Osiris  and  the  other  deities  of  antiquity  are. 

Between  the  man  to  whom  God  is  a  practical  ne- 
cessity, to  whom  the  world  without  God  is  a  phan- 
tom, and  another  to  whom  this  world  is  a  godless 
world,  although  he  may  cap  his  materialistic  phi- 
losophy with  a  conventional  theoretical  acknowledg- 
ment of  a  supreme  being :  between  these  two  there 
can  be  no  greater  difference.  The  God-view  and  the 
godless  view  of  life  are  diametrically  opposed  ;  there 
can  be  no  harmon^^  between  them.  The  lines  of  this 
issue  cannot  be  obliterated.     It  is  God  or  no  God. 


26  THE    KINGDOM    oF    (iOI). 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  prove  the  religious  view 
of  the  world.  I  merely  wish  to  point  out  the  vast 
difference  between  the  two  views.  The  religious 
view  of  life  assumes  God  as  the  necessary  correlate 
of  human  life.  The  secular  view  of  life  is  the  self- 
centred,  the  Christian  view,  the  God-centred  life. 

This  will  help  to  explain  what  Christ  meant  by 
the  "  eternal  life."  In  his  conception  of  that  life 
God  is  the  determining  factor.  He  proves  it  in 
himself.  What  is  more  noticeable  about  the  life  of 
Jesus  than  his  closeness  to  God:  "  No  man  knoweth 
the  Son  but  the  Father ;  neither  knoweth  any  man 
the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the 
Son  will  reveal  him  "  (St.  Matt.  xi.  27)—"  My  meat 
is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me  "  (St.  John  iv. 
34).  It  is  unnecessary  to  quote  any  more.  No  fact 
is  more  patent.  From  childhood,  when  the  con- 
sciousness of  a  higher  relationship  first  dawned  upon 
his  mind  and  he  felt  the  impulse  to  "be  about  his 
Father's  business,"  to  the  cross,  when  the  sense  of 
being  forsaken  by  God  marked  the  deepest  suffering, 
it  is  the  same  principle  that  shines  through  the  years 
of  Christ's  earthly  life,  that  of  the  closest  depend- 
ence upon  and  union  with  God.  Here  perhaps  more 
than  anywhere  else  is  seen  the  wretched  inadequacy 
of  all  mere  secular  criteria  of  life.  It  is  simply  im- 
possible to  construe  the  life  of  Jesus  w^ithout  recog- 
nising the  religious  factor.  You  may  say  that  his 
sense  of  oneness  with  God  was  a  delusion ;  then  this 
delusion  was  the  mainstay,  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  his  life^  * 


RELIGIOUS    DETERMFXATIOX    OF   CHRISTIAN   LIFE.      27 

It  will  be  furthermore  evident  that  the  object  of 
Jesus  was  to  extend  that  same  life  to  his  disciples. 
Thus  he  declares  :  "  I  am  come  that  they  might  have 
life  and  that  they  might  have  it  more  abundantly  " 
(St.  John  X.  lo).  And  that  this  life  is  the  same  as 
his  own,  a  life  in  God,  he  explains  in  his  prayer: 
'*  That  they  all  may  be  one;  as  thou.  Father,  art  in 
me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us." 
Hence  the  importance  which  he  attaches  to  his 
own  person,  the  invitations  to  come  to  him,  to 
learn  of  him,  to  believe  in  him,  his  setting  forth 
of  himself  as  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life,  the 
resurrection,  the  bread  of  life. 

Now  we  are  in  a  position  more  clearly  to  define 
that  element  in  the  New  Testament  which  is  distinct 
from  the  ethical.  It  is  the  religious  determination 
of  the  Christian  life.  We  use  here  the  term  religious 
in  the  stricter  sense  as  denoting  a  relationship  to 
God.  The  distinctively  religious  is  what  concerns 
man's  relation  to  God,  the  ethical  has  not  the  same 
direct  relationship  to  God.  The  ethical  in  man  is 
his  self-determination.  The  gospels  contain  no  ac- 
curate definitions.  But  there  is  enough  in  the  words 
of  Christ  and  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
epistles  to  differentiate  the  religious  from  the  ethi- 
cal determination  of  the  Christian  life.  We  under- 
stand from  the  words  of  Christ  that  in  his  own  case 
it  consisted  in  the  completest  union  between  himself 
and  God.  For  his  followers  we  can  conceive  of  this 
life  only  as  an  approach  to  that  perfect  union.  The 
religious  determination  of  the  Christian  life  is  near- 


28  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

ness  to  God.  This  is  figurative  speech,  and  the 
analogy  is  taken  from  relations  of  space ;  but  per- 
haps we  can  in  no  better  way  give  expression  in 
human  imperfect  language  to  the  spiritual  truth. 
We  may  also  conceive  that  relationship  as  one  of 
agreement  of  the  will  with  God.  The  more  we  ap- 
proach to  the  realisation  of  the  eternal  life,  by  so 
much  we  come  nearer  to  God,  or  so  much  more  does 
our  will  agree  with  that  of  God. 

We  have  now  found  solid  ground  upon  which  to 
base  our  argument  in  the  consideration  of  the  king- 
dom of  God.  We  have  differentiated  the  religious 
fromx  the  ethical  determination  of  the  Christian  life. 
The  understanding  of  what  follows  will  depend  upon 
the  clear  appreciation  of  the  distinction.  In  the 
kingdom  of  God  which  Christ  established  we  find 
these  two  factors,  the  religious  and  the  ethical.  The 
consideration  of  the  relationship  between  the  two 
is  reserved  for  a  subsequent  chapter.  Here  the  dis- 
tinction between  them  is  the  essential  point.  We 
insist  upon  this:  antecedent  to  the  ethical  self- 
determination  of  man  is  the  determination  of  his 
relationship  to  God.  Before  the  doing  there  is  a 
being,  and  that  being  consists  in  the  union  with 
God,  or  in  the  nearness  to  God.  This  is  character 
as  we  use  the  word  in  our  modern  language.  This 
is  the  eternal  life  as  Christ  used  the  expression.  So 
he  himself  says:  "  This  is  eternal  life  that  they 
might  know  thee  the  only  true  God  and  Jesus  Christ 
whom  thou  hast  sent  "  (St.  John  xvii.  3). 

Ill   ■)'\:   i  )vm   or  another  the  truth   wliich  is  here 


RELIGIOUS   DETERMINATION    OF    CHRISTIAN    LIFE.      2\) 

contended  for  has  been  the  subject  of  ever-recurring 
disagreement  among  Christians.  But  here  and  there 
have  risen  men  who  have  felt  deeply  that  truth, 
whose  souls  have  been  a-fire  with  the  sense  of 
man's  spiritual  relationship  to  God,  and  wherever 
they  have  appeared  they  have  profoundly  stirred  the 
hearts  of  their  fellowmen.  Such  was  St.  Paul  and 
such  was  St.  Augustine.  "  If  God  be  for  us,  who 
can  be  against  us  ?  "  said  St.  Paul.  "  Mihi  adhaerere 
deo  bonum  est  "  said  St.  Augustine.  It  was  be- 
cause of  the  grasp  which  these  men  had  upon  the 
religious  determination  of  the  Christian  life  that  the 
motive  power  of  every  subsequent  movement  for  the 
reformation  of  the  Church  is  traced  back  to  St. 
Augustine  and  through  him  to  St.  Paul. 

It  is  therefore  essential  that  we  hold  strongly  to 
the  determination  of  man's  relationship  to  God 
before  his  ethical  conduct.  That  view  of  religion 
which  blurs  the  distinction  between  the  ethical  and 
the  religious,  which  approaches  more  or  less  to  the 
proposition  I  have  cited,  that  "  the  object  of  re- 
ligion is  conduct,"  has  always  had  a  strong  fascina- 
tion, partly  because  of  its  supposed  simplicity, 
largely  because  of  the  desire  for  unification  of  the 
two  elements.  It  is  instructive  to  notice  the  dog- 
matic decisions  of  the  Council  of  Trent  upon  this 
subject.  The  fathers  of  the  Council  were  not  so 
blind  to  the  distinctively  religious  factor  as  Mr.  Mat- 
thew Arnold  was,  but  their  perplexity  and  consequent 
vacillation  in  bringing  the  ethical  and  the  religious 
into   proper  relationship   is  very  evident.     This  is 


80  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

seen  in  the  decree  on  Justification.'  The  result  is 
that  in  the  Roman  CathoHc  doctrine  there  is  a  recog- 
nition of  God's  relation  to  man  in  so  far  only  as 
God's  grace  brings  forth  good  works.  The  object 
is  simply  good  works  or  conduct;  there  is  no  dis- 
tinct recognition  of  a  state  of  man  in  relation  to 
God,  which  we  call  character,  antecedent  to  conduct. 
The  Christian  life  consists  in  good  works.  With  us 
the  Christian  life  consists  primarily  in  our  relation 
to  God.  By  the  neglect  of  this  element  there  has 
been  lost  out  of  sight  one  of  the  essential  aspects  of 
Christian  truth.  The  result  may  be  read  in  the 
history  of  civilisation  since  the  Council  of  Trent.' 

Christ  came  to  bring  eternal  life.  Not  conduct  is 
the  first  object  of  Christianity,  but  life,  that  life 
which  consists  in  the  communion  with  God. 

We,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  are  apt  to  think 

'  See  Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christendom. 

^  The  decadence  of  Roman  Catholic  nations  is  doubtless  due  to 
the  loss  of  virility  and  independence  of  character  ;  and  this  again  is 
due  to  the  peculiar  view  of  life  favoured  by  the  Church  of  Rome, 
which  is  theoretically  expressed  in  its  dogmas.  In  this  age  of  depre- 
ciation of  doctrine,  it  is  essential  to  bear  this  fact  in  mind.  A  recent 
writer  says  :  "  And  after  all  it  has  been  justly  said  that  the  difference 
between  the  Roman  doctrine  and  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion is  only  the  difTerence  between  a  quae  and  a  qua.  For  my  part  I 
care  as  little  for  the  quae  as  for  the  qua  "  (Fulton,  The  Calcedonian 
Decree).  There  are  two  conceptions  of  theology.  One  is  that  of  a 
science  of  accommodation  to  a  burdensome  yoke  of  dogma.  The 
truer  conception  is  that  of  the  science  of  those  spiritual  forces  which 
have  operated  upon  Christian  people  and  nations.  It  is  this  which 
gives  importance  to  Christian  doctrine  and  which  makes  the  study  of 
theology  fascinating. 


FiELIGIOUS   DETERMINATION    OF   CIIKISTIAN    LIFE.       81 

that  we  have  discovered  a  universal  solvent  for  all 
historical  problems.  The  master-key  which  seems 
to  unlock  all  mysteries  is  Evolution.  It  is  not  to 
be  denied  that  we  have  received  from  such  men  as 
Darwin  and  Spencer  a  wonderful  enlargement  of  the 
meaning  of  that  term,  which  has  brought  new  light 
into  our  conception  of  the  world.  But  there  is  one 
stubborn  fact  connected  with  man  which  will  not 
submit  itself  to  the  theory  of  evolution.  Call  that 
fact  by  whatever  name  you  will,  you  will  never  get 
rid  of  the  peculiar  character  attached  to  it  by  the 
old-fashioned  name  of  Sin.  From  the  elementary 
star-dust,  through  the  lower  up  to  the  higher  animal 
organisms,  everything  proceeds  with  the  utmost 
regularity  under  the  law  of  development,  until  you 
come  to  the  creature  man,  who  is  endowed  with  the 
mysterious  power  of  free-will,  and  with  that  faculty 
there  comes  sin.  Sin  enters  into  our  subject  be- 
cause it  is  a  bar  to  the  realisation  of  that  state  which 
Christ  described  as  man's  destination,  the  eternal 
life.  It  must  be  very  clear  to  the  most  ordinary 
observation,  that  man  very  generally  fails  of  the 
realisation  of  even  an  approach  to  the  life  which  we 
conceive  as  the  ideal.  The  failure  is  too  evident  in 
the  unhappiness,  in  the  lack  of  purpose,  in  the  rest- 
lessness, in  the  discontent,  not  to  speak  of  the  more 
obvious  failures  in  pronounced  selfishness  and  vi- 
ciousness  of  life.  We  can  all  see  that  there  is  a  dis- 
turbing element  in  life ;  life  has  missed  its  purpose, 
with  many  lamentably,  with  all  to  some  degree. 
The  disturbing  element  is  sin.      It  is  therefore  essen- 


6J.  THE    KINGDOM    OF    (iOl). 

tial  at  this  point  that  we  examine  the  Christian 
doctrine   of   sin. 

The  origin  of  sin  is  unessential  to  the  Christian 
faith.  Of  that  we  have  no  knowledge.  Whatever 
we  may  think  of  the  story  of  the  fall,  it  leaves  the 
great  mystery  untouched.  Why  did  God  permit 
sin  ?  The  mind  strives  in  vain  and  to  no  purpose 
to  read  this  dark  enigma.  None  who  has  a  heart  to 
feel  the  wickedness  and  the  suffering  in  the  world 
but  will  at  times  be  oppressed  with  the  weight 
of  the  mystery.  But  there  are  certain  questions 
which  we  so  plainly  see  to  be  beyond  the  grasp  of 
human  intelligence,  that  the  wisest  course  for  us  is 
to  set  our  faces  resolutely  away  from  them.  We 
accept  what  we  see,  the  fact  that  man  has  the  power 
to  make  choice  against  his  highest  interests  and  that 
he  is  apparently  governed  by  an  inveterate  propen- 
sity to  make  that  evil  choice.  This  power  of  choice 
seems  to  be  a  necessary  condition  of  man's  educa- 
tion. We  must,  however,  beware  of  admitting  any 
Manichaean  dualistic  theory.  We  cannot  allow 
the  possibility  of  an  evil  power  outside  of  God, 
commensurate  with  his  power.  There  is  but  one 
God. 

The  doctrine  of  sin  has  suffered  from  the  meta- 
physical bias  which  has  done  so  much  harm  in 
vitiating  theological  thought.  It  has  been  treated 
according  to  the  realistic  philosophy.  St.  Augus- 
tine stands  as  the  exponent  of  an  elaborate  doctrine 
of  sin,  in  which  he  gathered  up  the  elements  which 
seemed  to  him  prerequisite  to  the  Christian  belief  in 


RELIGIONS   DETERMINATIOX   OF    ClUUSTIAN    LIFE.      33 


redemption.  We  cannot  here  enter  into  a  partic- 
ular consideration  of  this  theory  or  of  the  various 
modifications  of  it  which  have  been  proposed  since 
the  time  of  Augustine.  It  is  sufficient  if  we  recog- 
nise their  common  object  and  the  fatal  defects  which 
characterise  them  alike.  The  object  was  to  make 
all  men  partakers  of  sin  and  of  its  consequent  ame- 
nability to  punishment,  by  w^iich  the  doom  of  death 
came  upon  the  human  race,  and  thereby  to  make 
redemption  through  Christ  appear  as  necessary 
and  rational.  It  was  an  attempt  to  justify  God  by 
means  of  a  theory  which  in  its  nature  was  rational- 
istic. Men  were  not  satisfied  to  take  human  nature 
where  Christ  took  it,  with  its  sinfulness  and  its  need 
of  a  Redeemer.  To  establish  a  theory,  St.  Augus- 
tine forsook  the  Christian  ground,  repudiated  the 
only  criterion  which  Christians  can  acknowledge  in 
religious  things,  and  lost  himself  in  a  series  of  specu- 
lations whose  forms  were  borrowed  from  an  alien 
philosophy.  The  result  of  these  speculations  was 
then  brought  back  into  the  sphere  of  religion,  made 
a  doctrine  and  introduced  to  the  Christian  world  as 
an  article  of  faith. 

When  we  ask  for  the  scriptural  warrant  of  this 
doctrine,  we  are  referred  to  the  writings  of  St.  Paul, 
especially  to  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  Now,  we  have  the  assertion  by  one  of 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  itself  that  in  St. 
Paul's  epistles  there  are  "  some  things  hard  to  be 
understood,"  and  when  we  consider  the  injurious 
effects  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  in  the  Christian 


S4:  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

Church,  we  are  tempted  to  believe  that  the  writer 
of  Second  Peter  had  this  very  fifth  chapter  of  the 
Romans  in  mind  when  he  added:  "which  they 
that  are  learned  and  unstable  wrest,  as  they  do  also 
the  other  Scriptures,  unto  their  own  destruction." 
But,  whatever  be  the  meaning  of  St.  Paul's  specula- 
tion about  sin  and  death,  we  at  least  have  a  right  to 
demand  that  a  doctrine  of  such  far-reaching  conse- 
quence as  that  of  original  sin  should  be  borne  out  by 
the  teaching  of  Christ  himself.  And  yet,  although 
no  one  can  deny  to  Christ  the  keenest  appreciation 
of  sin  and  sinfulness,  we  search  in  vain  through  the 
gospels  for  any  theory  as  to  the  cause  of  universal 
guilt.  Christ  simply  recognises  the  sinfulness  of 
each  individual  who  comes  before  him,  and  then 
he  dwells  upon  and  seeks  to  impress  upon  men  the 
remedy  for  sin  which  he  brings. 

I  believe  I  am  not  far  wrong  in  saying  that  among 
the  theological  errors  that  have  caused  Christianity 
to  be  misunderstood  and  undervalued,  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin  stands  in  the  foremost  rank.  Its 
effects  upon  Christian  thought  and  Christian  life 
have  been  most  injurious.  First,  it  materialises  sin. 
Sin  becomes  a  something  outside  of  ourselves  and 
of  everything  else;  it  becomes  a  thing  detached 
from  our  inner  life.  We  do  not  become  conscious 
of  it  in  the  affections  of  our  heart,  in  the  processes 
of  our  mind ;  it  is  a  mysterious  quantity  which  is 
objective  to  us  as  anything  else  outside  of  us  is,  with 
which  we  therefore  deal  according  to  the  rules  of 
logical  discourse.    This  materialisation  and  external- 


KEI.IGIOUS   DETEHMINATIUN    OF    CllKlSTIAN    LIFE.      OO 

isation  of  sin  inevitably  carries  with  it  an  impairment 
of  the  sense  of  guilt.  This  is  the  most  fatal  conse- 
quence of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  It  defeats 
its  own  purpose.  Invented  to  enhance  the  import- 
ance of  sin,  its  tendency  is  to  do  away  with  the 
personal  sense  of  sinfulness.  For  the  feeling  which 
the  belief  in  original  sin  carries  with  it  is  something 
far  different  from  the  sense  of  sinfulness  to  which 
Christ  appealed  and  which  forms  the  condition  of 
redemption.  When  sin  becomes  a  mysterious 
something,  which  I  am  supposed  to  share  with 
Adam,  which  is  handed  down  from  generation  to 
generation,  the  sense  of  guilt  is  dulled  and  an  aes- 
thetic aversion  takes  its  place.  Sin  comes  to  be 
looked  upon  as  something  ugly,  revolting;  it  excites 
our  disgust.  The  feeling  is  similar  to  that  caused  by 
a  putrifying  object  or  a  festering  sore.  But  aesthetic 
aversion  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  con- 
sciousness of  sinfulness. 

It  is  a^  necessary  consequence  of  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin  that  it  weakens  responsibility  ;  no  amount 
of  reasoning  will  ever  make  us  feel  responsible  for 
Adam's  transgression.  It  also  confounds  the  de- 
grees of  sin.  Sin  conceived  as  belonging  to  the 
race  deserves  death  ;  there  are  no  degrees  of  punish- 
ment. What  is  the  use  of  distinguishing  degrees  of 
actual  sin  when  I  am  held  to  have  deserved  the 
extreme  penalty  for  a  sin  with  which  I  had  nothing 
to  do  ? 

It  is  evident,  however,  that  there  is  a  valuable  truth 
to  which  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  gives  imperfect 


86  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

expression.  Ritschl  expresses  this  truth  by  means 
of  the  phrase:  kingdom  of  sin.  That  term  recog- 
nises the  fact  that  sin  exists,  not  as  an  isolated  un- 
connected fact,  but  as  a  complexus  of  closely  related 
phenomena.  It  is  patent  that  there  are  inherited 
tendencies  to  sin.  I  say  tendencies,  and  it  is  im- 
portant to  mark  the  distinction.  Sin  becomes  sin 
only  by  the  actual  transgression  of  the  individual 
will,  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  tendency  to 
transgress  may  be  handed  down  from  father  to  son. 
Then  there  is  the  propagation  of  sin  by  example, 
the  mysterious  power  by  which  sin  begets  sin. 
These  facts  make  it  proper  to  speak  of  a  law  of  sin, 
the  law  by  which,  in  the  complexus  of  human  phe- 
nomena, sin  is  connected  with  sin.  This  is  the 
element  in  the  conception  of  original  sin  which  is 
founded  in  fact,  but  which  is  better  expressed  by 
the  term :  kingdom  of  sin. 

It  is  most   essential   that   we   clearly   realise   and 
firmly  grasp  this  truth  :  that  sin  belongs  to  the  in- 

Ik 

dividual  will.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  sin  made 
objective  and  dissociated  from  the  inner  life  of  the 
soul.  Sin  is  the  peculiar  quality  of  certain  acts. 
Sin  no  more  exists  by  itself  than  colour  or  taste 
exist  by  themselves.  We  speak  of  blueness,  or  of 
bitterness,  but  no  one  supposes  that  these  qualities 
exist  apart  from  the  substances  to  which  they  be- 
long. So  sin  does  not  exist  apart  from  the  will  or 
the  feeling.  Bearing  this  truth  in  mind,  we  now 
proceed  to  examine  more  closely  into  the  nature  of 
sin. 


RELIGIOUS    DETERMINATION   OF   CHRISTIAN    LIFE.      37 

Sin,  in  the  Christian  sense,  must  be  understood 
in  relation  to  the  divine  will.  The  Christian  as- 
sumption is  that  every  human  being  stands  in  a 
certain  relation  to  the  divine  will.  The  power  over 
his  life  has  been  placed  in  his  own  hands,  but  it  is 
not  a  matter  of  indifference  to  God  how  he  uses  that 
power.  A  large  part  of  the  acts  of  the  individual 
are  indifferent,  that  is,  they  have  no  moral  value. 
They  do  not  determine  the  quality  of  his  life.  But 
so  far  as  any  act  determines  the  value  of  my  life,  it 
is  not  indifferent  to  the  divine  will.  God  has  a  pur- 
pose with  every  human  being.  That  purpose  is  not 
the  same  with  all,  as  the  parable  of  the  talents 
shows.  Men  are  variously  gifted,  and  correspond- 
ing to  his  endowments  there  is  an  ideal  of  every 
man's  life.  We  must  suppose  that  to  an  omniscient, 
righteous,  loving  God  this  ideal  is  always  present, 
that  he  is  ever  conscious  of  the  purpose  of  each 
man's  life.  Man  stands  before  God,  not  only  as  he 
is,  but  as  he  may  be.  This  truth  follows  from  the 
conception  of  God  as  the  New  Testament  gives  it  to 
us.  From  it  is  deduced  a  much  more  comprehensive 
estimate  of  sin  than  that  which  is  commonly  held. 
If  there  is  a  divinely  recognised  purpose  to  each 
life,  then  sin  is  the  deflection  from  that  purpose  in 
the  man  himself.  I  make  the  restriction  contained 
in  the  last  words  to  guard  against  any  ambiguity 
from  a  possible  deflection  caused  from  without, 
by  sickness  or  the  action  of  others,  which  of  course 
would  not  be  sin.  So  far  then  as  man  by  his 
own    action    departs    from    that    ideal    of   his   life, 


38  THE    KINGDOM   OF  'GOD. 

which  exists  in  the  divine  mind,  it  is  sin.  God  has 
marked  out  a  certain  path  for  man  to  travel.  Man 
follows  his  own  inclination  and  forsakes  the  path ;  in 
so  doing  he  commits  sin.  Sin  is  the  crossing  of  the 
divine  purpose. 

The  most  evident  manifestations  of  sin  are  found 
in  the  exercise  of  the  will  against  the  law  of  God. 
Sin  here  is  what  we  call  the  transgression  of  God's 
law.  It  is  a  matter  of  the  will.  But  if  the  above 
definition  is  true,  there  is  also  sin  of  the  feeling.  It 
is  somewhat  difficult  to  draw  the  line  accurately  be- 
tween will  and  feeling,  but  it  is  of  the  highest  im- 
portance to  recognise  the  fact  that  we  sin  in  our 
feelings  as  well  as  in  our  will. 

In  speaking  of  the  feelings,  I  do  not  mean  such 
feelings  as  anger  or  covetousness,  which  Christ  in- 
cluded under  the  positive  prohibition,  nor  the 
ephemeral  feelings  which  come  and  go ;  but  those 
fundamental  feelings,  which  go  to  form  what  we 
call  our  habit  of  mind,  which  give  quality  and  direc- 
tion to  our  character,  which  are  often  unconscious, 
but  which  are  always  there  as  the  substructure  of 
our  conscious  life :  the  persistent  feelings  which 
make  one  man  differ  in  disposition  from  another. 

Man  is  a  creature  dependent  upon  God.  Do 
what  he  will,  he  cannot  get  away  from  that  depend- 
ence. Now,  the  question  is:  What  position  will  he 
take  towards  this  fact  ?  There  is  a  twofold  possi- 
bility ;  he  may  acknowledge  it  or  he  may  deny  it. 
If  he  ignores  the  alternative,  as  so  many  men  seem 
to  do,  it  is  equivalent  to  a  denial.      But  the  normal 


RELIGIOUS   DETERMINATION    OF   CHRISTIAN   LIFE.      o9 

position  for  man,  that  which  agrees  with  God's  pur- 
pose for  him,  is  to  acknowledge  his  dependence  upon 
God.  This  is  the  most  essential  point  of  difference 
between  men,  the  acceptance  or  the  denial  of  de- 
pendence upon  God.  The  difference  is  one  of 
temper,  of  disposition,  of  habit  of  mind.  And  this 
temper  or  disposition  or  habit  of  mind  is  simply 
that  set  of  feelings,  become  habitual  with  us,  by 
which  we  determine  our  relation  to  God.  Sin 
therefore  consists  as  well  in  aberration  of  feeling  as 
in  aberration  of  will. 

Let  me  rehearse  the  salient  points  of  the  argu- 
ment. We  have  asked,  What  is  sin  ?  In  answer 
we  say.  Sin  is  defined  as  the  departure  of  man,  by 
his  own  act,  from  the  ideal  of  his  life  recognised  by 
God.  This  departure  takes  place,  first,  through  acts 
of  the  will  by  active  transgressions  of  the  divine 
law.  But  we  have  also  found  that  there  may  be  a 
departure  from  the  normal  life  in  feeling.  This  is 
the  religious,  as  distinguished  from  the  ethical  view 
of  sin.  It  explains  to  us  the  fundamental  distinc- 
tion between  the  God-centred  and  the  self-centred 
life.     The  former  is  normal,  the  latter  is  sin. 

It  now  remains  to  point  out  in  what  ways  the  con- 
sequences of  sin  make  themselves  felt.  In  three 
ways :  First,  the  active  transgression  manifests  itself 
in  the  sense  of  guilt,  the  accusing  conscience.  Sec- 
ondly, sin  as  wrong  feeling  makes  itself  felt  in  lack 
of  mental  peace.  The  self-centred  mind  does  not 
come  to  rest.  Contrast  the  serene  calm  of  the  Chris- 
tian mind  with  the  unrest  of  the  mind  that  has  not 


40  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

found  God.  Thirdly,  it  is  manifest  in  joylessness. 
Life's  task  cannot  be  done  without  joy.  To  the 
heart  ahenated  from  God,  life's  work  is  drudgery. 

Sin  is  the  negative  condition  of  Christianity, 
With  a  deepened  sense  of  sin  goes  a  deeper  appre- 
ciation of  Christianity.  A  mistake  has  very  com- 
monly been  made  which  has  hindered  the  full 
Christian  appreciation  of  sin.  This  consists  in 
measuring  sin  by  the  law.  The  dullness  of  con- 
science which  the  Church  has  at  times  manifested, 
the  slowness  which  she  has  often  shown  in  recognis- 
ing a  wrong,'  have  been  the  consequence  of  that 
perversion  of  truth  which  has  made  law  the  ultimate 
standard.  Sin  cannot  be  measured  by  the  law,  but 
only  by  contrast  with  goodness.  The  Christian  esti- 
mates sin  by  the  standard  of  the  ideal  in  Christ. 
Therefore  the  Christian  appreciation  of  sin  is  far  in 
advance  of  the  Hebrew  or  the  pagan. 

There  opens  up  before  us  here  a  subject  of  ex- 
treme interest  in  the  peculiarity  of  the  Christian 
ideal  of  life.  But  I  must  reserve  the  consideration 
of  this  subject  to  a  future  chapter,  when  I  shall 
speak  of  the  ethical  determination  of  the  Christian 
life.  Here  I  can  only  point  out  how  by  virtue  of 
the  infinitely  higher  ideal  of  Christianity  the  appre- 
ciation of  sin  is  correspondingly  enlarged  and  deep- 
ened. The  higher  Christian  ideal  is  well  illustrated 
to  us  in  our  Communion  service.  There  is  first  the 
recitation  of  the  Old  Testament  Commandments. 
All  but  one  of  these  are  negative.    They  tell  us  what 

*  Instance  :  Slavery  and  tlie  present  corruption  in  political  life. 


RELIGIOUS   DETERMINATION    OF   CHRISTIAN   LIFE.       -il 

not  to  do.  Then  comes  '*  What  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  saith  "  ;  and  here  we  have,  in  contrast  to  the 
negative,  the  positive  commandment  of  love  to  God 
and  love  to  man.  The  ideal  which  Christ  recog- 
nised, which  we  learn  from  his  life  and  his  teaching, 
is  the  positive  ideal. 

This  confirms  what  I  said  before  of  the  purpose 
of  God  with  each  life.  Christ  teaches  us  to  recog- 
nise the  positiveness  of  that  purpose.  How  infinitely 
keener  and  more  delicate  is  the  sense  of  his  short- 
comings in  the  man  who  goes  through  life  with  his 
eye  steadily  fixed  upon  an  ideal,  than  his  who 
measures  his  actions  by  the  dead  precept  of  the  law. 
The  law  may  give  you  an  external,  theoretical  know- 
ledge of  sin,  but  the  subjective  inner  feeling  of  sin 
with  which  goes  the  hatred  of  it,  is  only  possible 
when  one  has  grasped  the  ideal  of  goodness  as  it 
has  been  manifested  in  Christ. 

We  started  to  find  the  nature  of  that  bar  to  the 
state  which  Jesus  called  the  eternal  life,  which  is 
the  highest  conceivable  life,  the  life  in  communion 
with  God.  This  brought  us  to  the  Christian  doc- 
trine of  sin.  Sin  stands  in  the  way  of  the  realisa- 
tion of  that  higher  life,  by  alienating  man  from  God 
and  producing  within  him  the  feelings  of  guilt,  un- 
rest, and  joylessness.  It  is  idle  to  ask  whether  sin  is 
a  necessity  of  human  nature,  whether,  theoretically 
considered,  we  must  not  admit  the  possibility  of  a 
sinless  development.  Whatever  may  be  in  theory, 
practically  there  is  and  there  can  be  no  life  without 
sin.     In  the  ninth  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  we 


42  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

read  that  "  Original  sin  .  .  .  is  the  fault  and  cor- 
ruption of  the  nature  of  every  man,  that  naturally  is 
engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam, ' '  etc.  I  do  not 
know  that  any  better  account  could  be  given  of  it 
than  by  calling  it  a  "  corruption,"  if  we  beware  of 
giving  a  physical  interpretation  to  this  term.  There 
is  no  need  of  a  more  exact  definition.  Sin  stands 
for  something  radically  out  of  joint  in  the  world. 
Kant  spoke  of  an  "  Ur-bose."  What  that  is,  no 
one  can  tell.  All  we  can  say  is  that  it  is  a  necessity 
laid  upon  human  nature,  which  acts  as  a  hinderance 
to  its  normal  development,  to  the  attainment  of 
everlasting  life. 

We  may  now  proceed  to  the  next  stage  of  our 
argument. 

W^e  have  determined  two  points  in  life :  sin,  as 
man's  natural  state;  the  eternal  life,  as  his  destined 
end.  What  lies  between  sin  and  the  eternal  life  ? 
The  answer  is,  Forgiveness.  Sin  is  the  obstacle 
between  man  and  God.  It  keeps  man  from  God 
and  the  eternal  life.  It  must  be  overcome.  Man 
himself  cannot  overcome  it.  God  overcomes  it,  by 
forgiveness.  This  is  a  rough  way  of  stating  a  very 
important  religious  truth.  Forgiveness  occupies  a 
foremost  place  as  an  element  of  the  Christian  religion. 
Christ  very  clearly  recognised  this.  Instance  the 
story  of  the  paralytic,  the  sinful  woman,  the  woman 
taken  in  adultery,  the  Lord's  prayer:  "  forgive  us 
our  trespasses  as  we  forgive  those  who  trespass 
against  us."     The  recognition  of  forgiveness  in  the 


RELIGIOUS   DETERMINATION    OF   CHRISTIAN    LIFE.      48 

words  and  actions  of  Christ  is  too  evident  that  we 
should  fail  to  recognise  it  as  in  his  conception  a  nec- 
essary element  of  the  Christian  system.  To  this 
subject  therefore  we  must  give  our  serious  attention. 

There  is  in  religion  an  inveterate  tendency  to  ex- 
ternalisation.  Subjective  conditions  and  processes 
are  objectified ;  they  are  divested  of  their  ethical 
character  and  estimated  by  quantitative  measure- 
ment. This  tendency  is  observed  in  the  pagan 
systems,  and  it  accounts  for  the  constantly  recurring 
superstition  in  the  Christian  Church.  We  found  it 
expressed  in  the  commonly  received  conceptions  of 
sin.  The  external  obligatio  ad  pceiiam,  the  pun- 
ishableness,  is  emphasised  as  the  essential  character 
of  sin.  Sin  and  the  punishment  of  sin  have  been 
confounded. 

Corresponding  to  this  external  conception  of 
sin  is  the  idea  of  forgiveness  as  the  remission  or 
cancelling  of  punishment.  The  opinion  of  man- 
kind has  from  the  beginning  coupled  moral  wrong- 
doing and  physical  evil  as  cause  and  effect.  Suf- 
fering is  the  punishment  of  sin,  and  is  cancelled 
by  forgiveness.  This  is  a  fundamental  idea  of 
primitive  religion.  Homer  makes  Phoebus  send  a 
pestilence  into  the  Greek  army  in  revenge  for  the 
insult  Agamemnon  had  offered  to  the  priest  Chryses.' 
Nemesis  represents  the  popular  belief  in  the  neces- 
sary connection  between  physical  punishment  and 
wrong-doing.  This  doctrine  is  prominent  in  the  Old 
Testament.    We,  however,  in  the  light  of  the  Christ- 

•  Iliad.  Book  I. 


44  ,  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

ian  revelation,  are  obliged  considerably  to  modify 
the  traditional  conceptions.  Christ  in  several  cases 
emphatically  denied  that  guilt  was  to  be  inferred 
from  the  infliction  of  suffering.  Instance  the  Gali- 
laeans,  whose  blood  Pilate  had  mingled  with  their 
sacrifices,  and  "those  eighteen  upon  whom  the  tower 
of  Siloam  fell  "  (St.  Luke  xiii.).  Very  striking  is  the 
case  of  the  man  born  blind  in  St.  John  ix. ,  where 
the  disciples  represent  the  popular  conception  of 
physical  evil  as  the  punishment  of  sin:  "  Master, 
who  did  sin,  this  man  or  his  parents,  that  he  was 
born  blind  ?  "  Jesus  unequivocally  sets  himself 
against  the  idea:  "  Neither  hath  this  man  sinned, 
nor  his  parents." 

Whatever  be  the  organic  connection  between 
sin  and  physical  evil — this  remains  an  open  ques- 
tion— sin  and  evil  do  not  necessarily  go  together 
as  cause  and  effect  in  the  individual.  And  there- 
fore the  forgiveness  of  sins  cannot  mean  the  can- 
celling or  setting  aside  of  the  penalty  upon  sin  in 
the  form  of  suffering.  Christ  made  the  distinction 
very  clear  in  the  case  of  the  paralytic:  "  Son,  thy 
sins  be  forgiven  thee."  And  after  the  assurance  of 
forgiveness,  the  healing:  "  Arise,  and  take  up  thy 
bed  and  go  thy  way  into  thine  house." 

But,  it  may  be  said,  forgiveness  cancels,  not 
present,  but  future  punishment.  This  relegation  to 
a  future  time  is  a  convenient  disposition  of  a  diffi- 
cult subject,  but  it  finds  no  indorsement  from  the 
words  of  Christ.  One  of  the  striking  peculiarities 
of  Christ's  view  is  a  blending  of  present  and  future, 


RELIGIOUS   DETERMIXATION    OF    CHRISTIAN    LIFE.      45 

according  to  which  the  characteristics  of  the  Hfe  to 
come  are  to  be  found  in  the  life  that  is. 

The  association  of  forgiveness  with  punishment, 
as  commonly  understood,  is  therefore  a  habit  of  mind 
which  must  be  considerably  modified,  if  we  are  to 
understand  the  function  which  forgiveness  serves  in 
the  Christian  system.  This  will  be  the  more  clearl^^ 
apparent  if  we  consider  one  event  in  the  life  of 
Christ,  into  which  forgiveness  enters:  the  story 
of  the  sinful  woman  with  the  alabaster  box  of  oint- 
ment, in  the  seventh  chapter  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel. 
Jesus  declared  that  her  sins  are  forgiven  her.  What 
was  the  meaning  to  that  woman  of  Christ's  for- 
giveness ?  The  Pharisee  had  wondered  that  he 
allowed  her  to  touch  him,  for  she  was  a  sinner.  He 
would  have  no  intercourse  with  her;  so  far  as  he 
was  concerned,  she  was  an  outcast.  But  to  Jesus 
she  was  not  an  outcast.  The  heart  of  the  sinning 
woman  had  softened.  She  accepted  the  divine 
pardon,  and  the  Son  of  God  received  the  penitent 
sinner  back  into  fellowship  with  goodness  and  with 
God.  The  forgiveness  of  God  was  typified  in  the 
action  of  Christ,  when  in  contrast  to  the  Pharisee, 
who  scorned  her,  he  admitted  her  into  human  fel- 
lowship with  himself. 

We  need  but  to  realise  the  meaning  of  forgiveness 
between  man  and  man  in  order  to  understand  this. 
My  fellow-man  does  me  a  wrong.  With  that  wrong 
something  comes  between  him  and  me.  Our  normal 
relation  of  trustful  intercourse  is  marred.  The 
offence  he  has  committed  is  henceforth  a  bar  to  our 


46  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD 

intimacy.  There  is  an  opposition  between  us.  It 
may  not  be  expressed,  but  it  is  felt.  The  pleasing 
agreement  of  will  with  will,  thought  with  thought, 
has  ceased.  There  is  no  longer  the  old  easy,  fa- 
miliar, confident  exchange  of  sentiment.  In  short, 
there  is  a  distance  between  us  which  had  never  been 
before.  But  now  the  offence  is  forgiven;  the  dis- 
tance is  immediately  closed  up.  It  does  not  mean 
that  punishment  is  remitted ;  there  is  no  thought  of 
punishment.  But  it  means  the  restoration  of  per- 
sonal intercourse  between  man  and  man ;  it  means 
the  banishment  of  distrust  and  suspicion,  the  re- 
sumption of  the  old  intimate  understanding.  It 
means  that  the  barrier  is  removed,  and  I  have  taken 
him  once  more  into  the  fellowship  of  my  heart.  It 
was  this  restoration  of  fellowship  with  Christ  that  to 
the  sinning  woman  constituted  her  pardon. 

Just  the  same  took  place  with  the  woman  taken 
in  adultery.  Although  here  Jesus  does  not  speak 
the  word  forgiveness,  it  is  implied  when  he  says: 
"  Neither  do  I  condemn  thee."  This  story  shows 
us  the  contrast  between  the  human  and  the  divine 
way  of  dealing  with  men.  On  the  one  hand  is  the 
law,  representing  the  state  with  its  even-handed 
justice,  demanding  death  for  the  adulteress.  But 
there  is  a  greater  power  than  that  of  the  state,  the 
power  of  divine  forgiveness.  It  did  what  human 
justice  could  not  do,  it  restored  the  woman  to  her- 
self and  to  society. 

We  found  sin  to  consist  in  the  departure  from 
God's    purpose,   either  in   will   or  in   feeling.      We 


KELIGIOUS   DETEK.MiXATlUX    OF    CHRISTIAN    LIFE.      47 

can  now  understand  what  the  punishment  for  sin 
really  is.  It  is  the  feeling  of  alienation  from  God. 
Man  is  cut  off  from  the  source  of  his  life,  he 
becomes  a  castaway.  Like  the  ship  on  the  trackless 
ocean  whose  mariners  have  been  stricken  with  blind- 
ness, so  is  man  without  God.  This  alienation  from 
God  is  experienced  in  the  form  of  those  feelings 
which  accompany  sin:  guilt,  unrest,  joylessness. 
Forgiveness  brings  man  from  alienation  to  commun- 
ion. It  is  the  closing  up  of  the  breach  between  God 
and  man.  God  accepts  man  into  fellowship  with  him- 
self. Man  is  placed  once  more  in  his  normal  position. 
He  becomes  God-centred.  No  human  language  can 
adequately  convey  the  idea.  The  relation  of  spirit 
to  spirit  is  a  mystery  which  we  can  but  faintly  in- 
dicate.    And  yet  we  understand  what  is  meant. 

The  heart  that  finds  itself  restored  to  fellowship 
with  God  is  filled  with  new  feelings.  First,  there 
is  the  peace  of  conscience.  The  forgiveness  of  sins 
does  not  mean  that  all  remembrance  of  sin  is  can- 
celled either  in  the  divine  or  our  own  mind ;  but 
the  remembrance  of  the  wrong  done  is  robbed  of  its 
sting;  it  does  not  prevent  the  feeling  of  one-ness  in 
will  with  God  in  which  the  heart  comes  to  rest. 
There  is  eliminated  the  sense  of  opposition  to  the 
will  and  purpose  of  God  :  man  has  a  good  conscience. 

Then    there    is    the    peace    of   the    mind.      Says 
Arthur  Hugh  Clough  in  "  Dipsychus  "  : 

*'  I  am  rebuked  by  a  sense  of  the  incomplete, 
Of  a  completion  over  soon  assumed, 
Of  adding  up  too  soon." 


48  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

Many  men  have  felt  what  the  poet  felt.  A  vague 
feeling  of  unrest,  "  a  sense  of  the  incomplete,"  a 
misgiving  that  the  key  to  life  is  wanting,  a  certain 
puzzled  helplessness  in  facing  life's  problem.  That 
insatiable  longing  of  the  human  mind  for  a  unity  of 
principle  in  life  is  not  satisfied  without  God.  There 
is  only  one  point  of  view  from  which  all  the  ele- 
ments of  the  great  world-problem  show  themselves 
to  us  in  their  true  symmetry  and  proportions,  and 
that  is  with  God.  And  there  is  only  one  way  of 
placing  ourselves  there,  that  is  through  the  closing 
of  the  chasm  between  man  and  God  which  sin  has 
made :  by  forgiveness. 

Finally,  there  is  the  strength  for  life's  work.  Man 
has  a  task  to  accomplish,  a  work  to  do.  We  have 
seen  that  one  effect  of  sin  is  a  joylessness  which 
clogs  all  effort.  Forgiveness  does  away  with  that. 
No  man  does  successful  battle  with  life  unless  he  is 
keyed  up  to  that  feeling  of  joy  where  in  the  sense  of 
God's  continual  presence  he  faces  his  task  with  a 
stout  heart.  "  The  fruit  of  the  spirit  " — says  St. 
Paul — "  is  love,  joy,''  etc.  (Gal.  v.  22).  It  is  the 
privilege  of  the  Christian  that  he  has  control  of  a 
power  before  which  the  dark  clouds  that  had  low- 
ered over  life's  issues  and  made  the  event  seem  un- 
certain, which  have  brought  despondency  to  many  a 
heart,  are  dispelled.  To  the  Christian  there  can  be 
no  such  thing  as  despair.  The  issues  of  life  he  is 
satisfied  to  leave  in  stronger  hands;  he  can  look 
forward  serenely  to  the  morrow  because  he  knows 
that  "  all  things  are  ours  and  we  arc  Christ's  and 


RELIGIOUS    DETERMIXATTOX   OF    CIIRISTIAX    LIFE.       49 

Christ  is  God's  "  (i  Cor.  iii.  22);  his  is  the  privilege 
which  the  popular  saying  describes:  One  man  with 
God  on  his  side  is  a  majority.  This  confidence,  this 
courage,  this  joy  comes  to  him  who  has  been  brought 
into  the  fellowship  with  God  through  forgiveness, 
which  heals  the  wounds  that  sin  had  made. 

We  have  now  found  the  meaning  of  forgiveness; 
it  is  not  the  remission  of  punishment  in  the  ordinary 
sense.  It  is  the  bringing  back  of  man  to  God  from 
the  state  of  alienation  in  which  sin  had  placed  him. 
But  here  we  meet  with  a  difficulty.  Is  it  not  possi- 
ble that  a  man  might  have  the  same  experience  as 
that  which  has  been  described  as  the  result  of  for- 
giveness, by  the  reverse  process,  by  the  hardening 
of  the  heart  ? 

We  are  puzzled  when  we  find  that  the  peace 
which  we  connect  with  forgiveness  is  sometimes  en- 
joyed by  those  who  apparently  are  devoid  of  re- 
ligious feelings.^  There  is  a  large  class  of  people 
who,  without  religion,  seem  to  be  happy,  contented, 

*  The  following  paragraphs  were  written  under  the  impression 
made  by  large  masses  of  people  in  great  cities.  It  is  this  mass  of 
apparently  meaningless  lives  that  presents  the  greatest  difficulty  to 
the  religious  view  of  life.  One  cannot  at  times  help  feeling  as  Mat- 
thew Arnold  did  : 

"  What  is  the  course  of  the  life 
Of  mortal  men  on  the  earth  ? — 
Most  men  eddy  about 
Here  and  there — eat  and  drink, 
Chatter  and  love  and  hate, 
Gather  and  squander,  are  raised 
Aloft,  are  hurled  in  the  dust. 


50  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

and  peaceful.  It  seems  as  if  their  very  stolidity  and 
indifference  gave  them  what  religion  gives  to  the 
Christian.  Are  we  to  say  that  this  hardening  of  the 
heart,  this  dulling  of  the  faculties,  is  a  sort  of  for- 
giveness ?  It  is  this  brutish  apathy  which,  more 
even  than  the  wickedness  of  life,  puzzles  and  per- 
plexes. 

But  the  question  is  answered  for  those  upon  whom 
experience  has  forced  it,  by  another  experience — the 
strongest  external  evidence,  I  believe,  for  Christian- 
ity which  the  execution  of  the  pastoral  office  fur- 
nishes. In  the  midst  of  a  hopeless  dullness  and 
mediocrity  of  life,  from  the  level  plain  of  stolid  in- 
difference, there  suddenly  flashes  upon  us  a  bright 
example  of  Christian  beauty  of  life,  a  life  of  refine- 
ment and  acute  sensibilities,  of  deep  religious 
experience  and  high  moral  tone.'  It  is  such  lives  as 
these  that  show  us  the  difference  between  confirmed 

Striving  blindly,  achieving 
Nothing  :  and  then  they  die — 
Perish  : — and  no  one  asks 
Who  or  what  they  have  been, 
More  than  he  asks  what  waves, 
In  the  moonlit  solitudes  mild 
Of  the  midmost  ocean,  have  swelled, 
Foamed  for  a  moment,  and  gone." 

Rugby  Chapel. 

And  yet  one  feels  rebuked  for  admitting  this  view  of  life  to  the 
mind.  A  truer  chord  is  struck  by  that  other  voice  that  comes  down 
to  us  through  the  centuries  :  "  One  sparrow  shall  not  fall  on  the 
ground  without  your  Father." 

*  One  is  struck  by  a  refinement  of  features  not  infrequently  met  in 
such  surroundings. 


RELIGIOUS    DETERMINATION    OF    CHRISTIAN    LIFE.       51 

indifference  and  Christian  forgiveness.  The  fact 
that  such  men  and  women  have  been  enabled  to  rise 
above  their  surroundings  gives  evidence  of  the  pres- 
ence of  a  spiritual  power  in  their  lives,  and  makes  us 
understand  that  callousness  is  not  forgiveness.  It 
may  deaden  the  heart  to  the  effects  of  sin,  but  it 
leaves  the  sin  itself,  the  satisfaction  with  the  imper- 
fect life,  the  brutish  complacency  in  the  state  of 
alienation  from  God. 

Forgiveness,  bringing  man  to  God,  takes  away 
not  only  the  guilt  of  sin  but  the  sin  itself.  Not  that 
man  becomes  sinless;  but  sin  no  longer  exercises 
the  determination  of  his  hfe ;  there  is  an  opposition 
to  sin ;  the  better  nature  asserts  itself  against  the  in- 
fluences which  tend  to  drag  man  below  the  level  of 
man's  dignity.  This  is  the  secret  which  so  often 
invests  homely  lives  with  a  nobility  and  grandeur, 
where  the  peace  of  life  is  not  the  peace  of  the  brute 
who  knows  no  wants  but  his  appetite,  but  the  peace 
of  manhood,  alive  to  the  sense  of  its  worth  and  its 
possibilities.  This  peace  belongs  to  the  life  of  com- 
munion with  God. 

Forgiveness  is  the  process  by  which  that  life  is 
entered.  It  includes  therefore  two  elements:  the 
knowledge  of  sin  and  the  release  from  sin. 


CHAPTER    II. 

THE   ATONEMENT. 

I  HAVE  used  the  word  ''  forgiveness  "  to  denote 
the  change  that  takes  place  when  the  sinner  is 
brought  from  a  state  of  alienation  to  one  of  fellow- 
ship with  God.  It  is  so  used  by  Christ.  In  the 
New  Testament,  however,  there  are  other  words 
which  have  the  same  or  a  cognate  meaning.  Fore- 
most among  them  is  the  word  ' '  j ustification. ' '  The 
prominence  which  St.  Paul  gives  to  this  conception 
is  well  known.  "  Justified  freely  by  his  grace  " 
(Rom.  iii.  24) :  this  was  the  corner-stone  of  that 
grand  ideal  of  the  Christian  life  which  has  made  St. 
Paul  the  greatest  human  exponent  of  Christianity. 

St.  Paul  had  distinct  and  well-defined  conceptions 
of  Christian  truth.  There  are  doubtless  points  at 
which  this  conception  seems  to  deflect  from  that  of 
Christ.  But  it  is  no  less  true  that,  clothed  in  a  dif- 
ferent phraseology,  we  find  largely  the  same  funda- 
mental ideas.  We  have  the  idea  of  the  eternal  life 
reproduced.  St.  Paul  does  not,  it  is  true,  follow 
Christ  in  the  use  of  the  same  words,  but  speaks  out 
of  his  own  experience.  Again,  St.  Paul's  view  of 
the  religious  determination  of  that  life  is  equally 
pronounced.      If  ever  there  was  a  man  whose  life 

52 


THE    ATONEMENT.  53 

was  determined  by  his  relation  to  God,  it  was  St. 
Paul.  Finally,  what  Christ  calls  "  forgiveness,"  St. 
Paul  called  "  justification." 

The  two  words  stand  for  the  same  thing.  This 
has  not  been  generally  understood.  Forgiveness  is 
supposed  to  denote  a  negative  operation,  justifica- 
tion a  positive.  It  is  thought  that  forgiveness  only 
takes  the  sin  away,  but  does  not  impart  goodness, 
that  it  therefore  leaves  the  sinner  in  a  neutral  con- 
dition. From  this  he  is  translated  to  a  condition  of 
positive  value  by  the  process  of  justification.  The 
fatal  objection  to  this  is  that  it  makes  forgiveness 
unintelligible.  A  process  by  which  the  soul  remains 
neutral  is  inconceivable.  As  was  pointed  out  in  the 
introduction,  we  cannot  understand  anything  as 
affecting  the  soul  except  as  the  effect  is  manifested 
in  the  soul's  activity.  Forgiveness  is  unintelligible 
unless  it  is  evidenced  by  the  active  feeling  of  the 
soul.  It  is  therefore  just  as  much  a  positive  act  as 
justification.  Forgiveness  in  the  language  of  Christ 
and  justification  in  the  language  of  St. Paul  stand  for 
the  process  by  which  the  Christian  state  is  entered. 

The  attempt  to  differentiate  these  terms  is  an  in- 
stance of  how  completely  the  living  interests  of  faith 
are  lost  out  of  sight  when  logic  takes  the  place  of 
experience.  Theologians  were  even  unable  to  agree 
as  to  the  order  of  the  two  processes,  which  was  to 
be  conceived  as  first  and  which  as  second.  As  soon 
as  we  set  aside  logical  niceties,  the  matter  becomes 
very  simple  :  Man  has  not  attained,  he  cannot  attain, 
to  his  ideal;  between  him  and  that  ideal  there  is  a 


54  THE   KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

barrier.  God  alone  can  help  him.  God  does  help 
him.  Whether  we  call  it  Forgiveness,  or  Justifica- 
tion, or  Adoption,  or  Reconciliation  :  all  these  terms 
denote  one  and  the  same  process,  the  one  act  of 
God  by  which  man  is  brought  from  a  state  of  aliena- 
tion to  a  state  of  fellowship.  The  last  term,  recon- 
ciliation, denotes  a  little  more  than  the  others, 
namely  that  the  process  has  been  brought  to  com- 
pletion by  man's  acceptance  of  God's  gift. 

Forgiveness  must  be  understood  as  an  act  of  God. 
Here  is  the  point  at  which  the  Christian  and  the 
naturalisitc  conceptions  show  the  most  decided  di- 
vergence. God  is  not  a  transcendent,  unapproachable 
being,  but  one  who  enters  into  direct  relation  with 
man.  This  relation  is  the  dominating  principle  of 
man's  life.  Furthermore,  it  is  not  merely  man  who 
places  himself  in  relation  to  God,  God  takes  a  posi- 
tion towards  man.  The  act  by  which  God  forgives 
man  is  called  by  Ritschl  an  act  of  "  synthetic  judg- 
ment."    The   distinction   is    between   this  and   an 

analytic  judgment. ' '  An  analytic  judgment  is  one 
which  is  made  upon  the  analysis  of  the  object  judged. 
It  is  the  expression  of  what  actually  is.  Forgiveness 
would  be  an  analytic  judgment,  if  it  were  simply 
the  acknowledgment  by  God  of  the  state  of  man 
such  as  he  finds  it.  It  would  then  be  no  more  than 
an  expression  of  a  fact.  Man  is  righteous  and  God 
by  forgiveness  declares  him  to  be  so.  A  synthetic 
judgment  comprehends  an  act  of  the  will  by  which 
the  object  is  made  to  be  that  which  by  itself  it   is 


THE   ATONEMENT.  00 

not.  Man  as  forgiven  by  God  is  something  different 
from  that  which  lie  was  before.  And  this  he  is  by 
virtue  of  the  act  of  God.  He  owes  his  new  position 
with  whatever  that  impHes  to  God.  He  is  in  the 
new  position  through  the  active  exertion  of  the  will 
of  God.  Here  again,  the  best  guide  is  the  analogy 
of  human  forgiveness — Christ  placed  both  on  one 
level  when  he  taught  us  to  pray:  ''  forgive  us  our 
trespasses  as  we  forgive  those  that  trespass  against 
us."  As  with  us,  when  we  forgive,  there  is  a  posi- 
tive act  of  the  will,  so  with  God.  Forgiveness  can- 
not be  reduced  to  the  operation  of  a  natural  law.  It 
presupposes  a  personal  divine  will. 

The  idea  of  forgiveness  has  become  involved  in 
the  conception  of  a  judicial  process.  The  first  stage 
of  this  process  is  the  "satisfaction"  of  God.  After 
this  satisfaction  of  God's  honour  or  justice  has  taken 
place,  he  pronounces  sentence  of  forgiveness. 

This  connection  between  God's  forgiveness  and  his 
justice  owes  its  origin  to  the  legal  ideas  which  in  the 
Middle  Ages  obtained  a  predominant  influence  in 
the  formation  of  Christian  doctrine.  It  is  a  part  of 
that  system  whose  fundamental  tenet  is  the  inherent 
antagonism  between  God's  justice  and  his  mercy. 
God's  anger  was  turned  away  by  the  act  of  Christ 
doing  satisfaction  to  the  demands  of  justice.  For- 
giveness is  the  sentence  by  which  man  is  relieved 
from  the  penalties  of  sin.  The  question  is  sup- 
pressed :  What  prompted  the  action  of  Christ  ? 
The  theory  really  attributes  to  God  an  attempt  at 


56  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

self-deception,  making  him  ascribe  that  to  his  jus- 
tice which  had  been  brought  about  solely  through 
his  mercy. 

The  consequences  of  this  theory  which  makes  for- 
giveness part  of  a  judicial  process  will  be  developed 
at  another  place.  Here  I  wish  to  call  attention  to 
one  practical  result.  In  the  common  mind  all  that 
is  pleasant  and  soothing  and  comforting  in  religion 
is  connected  with  Christ,  while  it  contemplates  the 
Father  as  the  stern  avenger  of  wrong.  To  the  ma- 
jority of  Christians  probably,  God  the  first  person  in 
the  Trinity  is  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament,  or,  I 
should  say,  of  a  limited  portion  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, a  denial  of  the  God  of  the  New  Testament, 
while  Christ  has  attracted  to  himself  all  the  loving 
features  of  the  God  he  revealed. 

Christ  brings  forgiveness  into  relation  with  God's 
fatherhood.  So  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  where  the 
petition  for  forgiveness  is  preceded  by  the  invocation 
of  the  Father:  "  Our  Father  who  art  in  heaven." 
So  too  we  read:  ''  Forgive  .  .  .  that  your 
Father  also  which  is  in  heaven  may  forgive  you 
your  trespasses  " — "  But  if  ye  do  not  forgive, 
neither  will  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  forgive 
your  trespasses  "  (St.  Mark  xi.  25  /.).  In  the  par- 
able of  the  prodigal  son  it  is  the  forgiving  father  by 
whom  Christ  illustrates  God's  readiness  to  forgive 
the  penitent  sinner.  In  the  high-priestly  prayer,  in 
which  Christ  speaks  of  his  atoning  work  and  of  its 
relation  to  God,  the  conception  all  through  is  that  of 
the  Father.      God  foriiives  because  he  is  our  Father. 


THE    ATONEMENT.  57 

In  the  gospels  we  find  not  infrequent  expressions 
of  a  certain  separation  which  exists  between  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ  and  others.  The  peculiar  use  of  the 
term  "  world  "  marks  this  separation.  We  read  in 
the  high-priestly  prayer:  "  I  have  manifested  thy 
name  unto  the  men  which  thou  gavest  me  oiit  of  the 
world'' — "  They  are  not  of  the  world  even  as  I  am 
not  of  the  world. ' '  This  idea  of  separation  is  carried 
over  into  the  epistles.  St.  Paul  says:  "  God  hath 
from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation  "  (2 
Thess.  ii.  13),  St.  Peter:  "  Ye  are  a  chosen  genera- 
tion, a  royal  priesthood,  an  holy  nation,  a  peculiar 
people  "  (i  Pet.  ii.  9).  When  we  remember  what 
is  so  important  to  bear  in  mind,  that  Christ  built 
upon  the  Old  Testament,  that  therefore  the  signifi- 
cance of  what  he  did  and  taught  must  be  learned 
from  the  Old  Testament,  we  shall  easily  find  the 
origin  of  this  conception.  It  is  pointed  out  by  Christ 
himself  at  the  institution  of  the  last  supper:  '*  This 
is  my  blood  of  the  covenant  "  (St.  Mark  xiv.  24). 
These  words  refer  to  the  covenant  with  Israel  (Ex. 
xxiv.  8).  Jeremiah  had  prophesied  a  new  covenant 
which  God  was  to  make  (ch.  xxxi.  31).  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  Jesus  at  the  institution  of  the  Holy 
Communion  intended  to  designate  himself  as  the 
bringer  of  the  new  covenant.  The  old  covenant 
was  ratified  with  the  blood  of  beasts,  the  new  cove- 
nant was  to  be  ratified  with  his  own  blood.  The 
old  covenant  was  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the 
new  covenant  was  a  more  effective  agency  for  the 
same  purpose.     The  old  covenant  was  between  God 


06  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

and — not  the  individual  Israelites,  but  Israel  as  a 
nation,  a  community.  So,  too,  the  new  covenant  is 
between  God  and — not  the  individual,  but  the  com- 
munion of  believers,  the  followers  of  Jesus,  the 
Church  of  Christ,  which  is  chosen  out  of  the  world. 
As  we  are  to  understand  Christ's  intention  by  refer- 
ence to  the  Old  Testament  polity  which  to  him  was 
the  expression  of  the  divine  will,  we  must  interpret 
his  purpose  of  a  new  covenant  as  the  intended  estab- 
lishment of  a  corporate  body,  a  new  Israel,  which 
was  to  become  heir  to  the  blessings  promised  to  the 
old  Israel,  but  by  them  refused.  Christ,  thinking 
as  a  Hebrew,  could  not  have  contemplated  the  in- 
dividual as  primarily  the  object  of  his  mission.  He 
could  not  have  imagined  the  Church  as  a  voluntary 
association  of  individuals.  Such  a  conception  w^as 
alien  to  the  idea  of  a  covenant.  The  covenant  could 
not  be  with  the  individual,  it  must  be  with  the  body. 
Hence,  underlying  the  idea  of  separation,  in  the 
gospels  and  the  epistles,  is  the  opposition  to  the 
world  of  the  compact  body  of  believers. 

It  is  necessary  to  correct  the  natural  bias  of  our 
modern  ideas,  which  is  strongly  individualistic,  by 
reference  to  the  historic  genesis  of  Christian  concep- 
tions. We  shall  be  able  to  express  the  result  as  it 
affects  our  present  conditions  in  a  few  words.  As 
seen  from  the  divine  point  of  view,  the  Church  is 
prior  to  the  individual;  it  is  not  the  individual  be- 
lievers who  by  association  form  the  Church,  but  it 
is  the  Church  which  through  the  new  life  that  it  im- 
parts  creates   the    believer.      The   moaning    of    the 


THE    ATOXEMEXT.  59 

word  as  here  used  is  that  of  the  19th  Article:  "  A 
congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  the  which  the  pure 
word  of  God  is  preached,"  etc.  This  Church  of 
Christ,  or  fellowship  of  believers,  is  the  new  Israel 
which  takes  the  place  of  the  old  Israel.  It  is  with 
this  body  that  the  new  covenant  stands. 

It  is  the  Church,  therefore,  which  is  primarily  the 
object  of  the  divine  forgiveness,  and  the  individual 
attains  that  blessing  through  the  Church.  It  is 
essential  to  remember  that  the  Church  here  does  not 
stand  for  any  order  or  caste.  But  even  with  that 
reservation,  the  proposition  may  seem  to  involve  an 
intermediary  other  than  Christ  between  God  and 
man.  Christ  having  once  for  all  opened  the  way 
from  man  to  God,  it  is  intolerable  to  conceive  of  any- 
thing being  placed  again  between  us  and  our  creator. 
But  we  must  not  fail  to  distinguish :  it  is  here  not  a 
question  of  the  exercise  of  the  Christian  life,  but  of 
the  genesis  of  that  life.  The  question  is.  How  does 
man  come  into  communion  with  God?  and  the 
answer,  Through  the  Church.  The  Church,  as  the 
object  of  forgiveness,  is  the  sphere  within  which  is 
realised  the  blessing  which  God  vouchsafes  to  man ; 
and  it  is  through  the  influence  of  the  Church,  through 
training  within  the  Church  or  through  contact  with 
the  Church's  life,  that  the  blessing  is  extended  to 
the  individual.  The  Church  is  the  means.  It  is 
the  organ  of  forgiveness,  it  is  the  body  which  is  op- 
posed to  the  world  as  endowed  with  the  power  of 
forgiveness. 

There  is  a  sphere  of  life  separated  from  other  life, 


60  THE   KINGDO:\r   OF   GOD. 

which  is  characterised  by  its  own  special  traditions, 
by  the  exercise  of  certain  functions,  and  by  the  com- 
mon aspiration  and  the  partial  attainment  of  a  certian 
ideal  of  life.  This  ideal  is  not  a  thing  which  may 
be  accurately  described  and  communicated  in  human 
language.  It  is  something  which  exists  and  is  per- 
petuated only  in  the  lives  of  men.  That  body  or 
that  sphere  of  common  life,  which  is  thus  isolated 
from  the  general  life  of  the  world,  is  the  result  of  a 
special  relationship  entered  into  by  God  for  the  good 
of  mankind.  This  is  the  covenant  of  forgiveness. 
Forgiveness  is  the  constitutive  principle  of  Christ- 
ianity as  forming  the  Church.  The  Church  presents 
that  sphere  of  human  society  which  is  determined 
by  the  principle  of  divine  forgiveness.  The  corre- 
late of  divine  forgiveness  is  the  Church,  and  the  in- 
dividual so  far  as  he  comes  within  the  sphere  of  the 
Church.  The  individual  does  not  make  the  Church  ; 
he  always  finds  the  Church  present  in  human  so- 
ciety; and  so  far  as  he  is  touched  by  the  peculiar 
life  of  the  Church,  he  becomes  partaker  of  forgive- 
ness. 

It  is  an  essential  requisite  of  an  ethical  system 
that  the  will  of  man  be  conceived  as  free.  This  is 
the  advantage  of  the  foregoing  theory,  that  it  com- 
bines a  due  regard  for  God's  sovereignty  with  the 
preservation  of  human  liberty.' 

'  If  we  conceive  God's  foreknowledge  and  foreordination  to  life  to 
apply,  not  to  the  individual,  but  to  the  body  or  fellowship  of  be- 
lievers, then  the  individual's  freedom  is  conserved.  God's  immutable 
purpose  applies  to  the  Church  ;  the  individual  is  not  predetermined. 


THE    ATOXEMEXT.  61 

The  question  of  the  human  will  has  been  the  most 
prolific  source  of  theological  strife.  The  refinement 
of  speculative  subtlety  has  drawn  the  nicest  distinc- 
tions. The  motive  of  such  speculations  was  the  de- 
sire of  logical  precision,  which  has  done  so  much  to 
turn  the  minds  of  men  from  the  true  interests  of  the 
faith,  which  has  always  employed  a  fruitless  meta- 
physics as  the  instrument  of  its  investigations,  and 
whose  outcome  has  always  been  a  materialisation  of 
Christianity.  We  can  afford  to  set  aside  these  subtle- 
ties as  irrelevant  to  theology.  It  is  sufficient  to  know 
that  man's  action  is  simply  the  acceptance  of  the 
divine  pardon,  the  acknowledgement  of  dependence 
on  God.  This  is  the  first  step  of  the  Christian  life. 
The  fault  of  the  old  theology  was  that  owing  to  its 
imperfect  conception  of  God  too  much  positive  ac- 
tivity was  attributed  to  man  in  the  first  act  of  faith. 
It  was  man  turning  to  God.  We  understand  it  to 
be :  God  seeking  man  and  man  accepting  God. 
Man  opens  himself  to  God  and  God  enters.  The 
human  act  is  simply  one  of  affirmation. 

Here  then  we  have  the  subjective  side  of  forgive- 
ness. It  is  expressed  in  the  word '' faith."  Without 
faith  in  man  the  act  of  God  is  incomplete.  The 
justification  by  which  God  declares  his  forgiveness 
and  by  which  the  body  of  believers,  the  Church,  is 
drawn  from  a  state  of  alienation  into  one  of  com- 
munion with  him :  that  act  is  perfected  in  the  in- 
dividual by  faith  and  becomes  Reconciliation. 

This  act  of  faith  is  not  an  act  of  the  intellect.  It 
is  not  the  mere  credence  given  to  certain  statements 


62  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

of  religious  truth.  In  all  mental  acts  every  faculty 
of  the  mind  is  employed,  and  we  classify  them  only 
according  to  the  prominence  of  one  or  the  other 
faculty.  There  is  an  intellectual  element  in  faith 
and  an  element  of  feeling;  but  the  predominant 
factor  is  the  will. 

We  have  to  do  here  with  the  initial  act  of  faith. 
It  must  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  mature 
act.  Faith  is  a  growth.  We  are  now  considering 
the  inception.  We  found  that  forgiveness  was  the 
process  instituted  by  God,  by  which  through  an  act 
of  his  will  man  is  brought  from  sin  to  eternal  life, 
from  alienation  to  communion.  This  is  the  object- 
ive act.  The  subjective  correlate  is  faith,  by  which 
man  acknowledges  his  dependence  upon  the  divine 
will.  Tneed  not  more  than  allude  to  the  prominence 
given  to  faith  in  the  New  Testament.  When  St. 
Paul  speaks  of  being  "  justified  by  faith,"  he  means 
that  faith  is  the  condition  of  justification ;  justifica- 
tion properly  is  by  God  alone. 

Contrasted  with  the  view  of  forgiveness  here 
presented,  is  that  which  makes  law  the  constitutive 
principle  of  Christianity.  Man's  life  is  primarily 
measured  by  the  law.  This  is  the  original  standard. 
But  man  could  not  keep  the  law,  and  forgiveness 
came  in  to  help  him  out.  At  this  point  there  is  a 
diversity  of  view.  On  the  one  hand  is  the  doctrine 
of  man's  total  depravity.  None  of  his  works  are 
good.  The  law  only  condemns;  hence  he  is  saved 
by  faith  and  forgiveness.     On  the  other  hand,  it  is 


THE    ATONEMENT.  63 

held  that  so  far  as  man  keeps  the  law,  he  is  accept- 
able to  God ;  forgiveness  does  away  with  the  effect 
of  inevitable  lapses.  Law  and  forgiveness  stand 
side  by  side.' 

With  this  shade  of  variation,  the  commonly  ac- 
cepted view  of  forgiveness  assigns  to  it  a  secondary, 
accidental  position  in  the  Christian  system.  The 
legal  relation  is  first  and  essential.  Forgiveness  is 
somehow  adapted  to  this  legal  relation.  There  is 
no  clear  differentiation  of  the  distinctively  religious 
from  the  moral. 

Against  this  view  it  is  maintained,  as  the  funda- 
mental distinction  of  Christianity,  that  the  one 
essential,  permanent,  all-controlling  principle  of  the 
Christian  life  is  man's  spiritual  relation  to  God,  of 
which  forgiveness  is  the  expression. 

There  is  a  craving  in  human  nature  for  unity.  The 
mind  rests  satisfied  in  the  simplicity  of  one  control- 
ling principle.  The  unity  of  the  Christian  life  is 
found  in  the  principle  of  man's  restored  fellowship 
with  God,  in  Forgiveness.  One  very  singular  phe- 
nomenon connected  with  Christianity  appeals  to  men 
with  increasing  effectiveness  in  behalf  of  a  gospel  of 
forgiveness :  the  growth  of  wickedness  along  with 
the  growth  of  goodness.  It  is  prefigured  in  the 
story  of  Christ's  life,  in  the  intensifying  hatred  of 
the  Pharisees  and  in  the  hardening  of  Judas's  heart. 
It  is  recognised  by  Christ,  where  he  speaks  of  the 
effect  of  his  teaching:  "  That  seeing  they  may  see 
and  not  perceive ;  and  hearing  they  may  hear  and 

'  Compare  the  Homily  "  Of  the  Salvation  of  Mankind." 


64  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

not  understand ;  lest  at  any  time  they  should  be 
converted  and  their  sins  should  be  forgiven  them  " 
(St.  Mark  iv.  12),  and  in  those  words:  *'  Think  not 
that  I  am  come  to  send  peace  on  earth ;  I  am  not 
come  to  send  peace  but  a  sword  "  (St.  Matt.  x.  34), 
and  again  in  his  forecast  of  the  future  in  the  dis- 
course upon  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  It  is 
that  fact  which  has  been  so  puzzling  and  unaccount- 
able to  many,  that  Christianity  seems  not  only  to  in- 
crease goodness  but  to  increase  wickedness.  With 
all  the  good  that  Christianity  has  produced  in  the 
world,  we  stand  after  eighteen  hundred  years  aghast 
at  the  wickedness  of  man.'  With  all  the  light 
of  Christianity  the  dark  side  of  life  seems  darker 
than  before.  Whatever  be  the  explanation — whether 
the  religion  which  is  to  restore  to  man  the  divine 
likeness,  must  of  necessity  in  bringing  man  to  the 
consciousness  of  himself  and  of  his  power  give  him 
the  power  of  evil  as  well  as  the  power  of  good,  and 
so  bring  out  all  the  evil  possibilities  of  his  nature 
as  well  as  the  good  ;  or  whether  the  apparent 
intensification  of  sin  is  more  a  quickening  of  the 
moral  sense  due  to  Christianity  which  makes  that 
appear  sin  which  never  was  thought  sin  before — the 
result  is  the  same:  it  makes  us  feel  the  insufficiency 
of  any  merely  moral  religion  and  brings  home  the 
power  of  Christianity  as  the  religion  of  Forgiveness. 

'  This  dark  side  of  our  Christian  civilisation  contrasted  with  heathen 
virtue,  and  also  its  counterpart,  the  standard  of  goodness  unattained 
outside  of  Christianity,  is  strikingly  portrayed  by  an  intelligent  Jap- 
anese in  The  Diary  of  a  Japanese  Convert. 


THE   ATONEMENT.  65 

We  are  now  about  to  take  another  step  forward  in 
our  argument.  Let  us  review  the  saHent  points  of 
the  result  we  have  so  far  reached.  We  have  es- 
tabhshed  three  essential  positions.  First,  the 
all-important  interest  of  the  Christian  life  is,  not 
conduct  but  a  state;  not  what  we  do  but  what  we 
are — the  eternal  life.  Second,  there  is  an  obstacle 
which  prevents  man  from  attaining  that  life — sin, 
which  rightly  understood  is  alienation  from  God, 
either  in  will  or  feeling.  Third,  God  does  away 
with  this  alienation  and  brings  man  into  fellowship 
with  himself  —  forgiveness,  which  is  accepted  by 
faith.  This  forgiveness  proceeds  from  God  as 
Father;  it  is  the  constitutive  principle  of  the  Christ- 
ian life,  and  it  belongs  to  the  Church. 

The  next  link  in  our  argument  will  be  that  which 
establishes  the  connection  between  Christ  and  for- 
giveness. So  far  we  have  recognised  none.  We 
have  left  Christ  out.  Now  the  question  is,  What 
has  Christ  to  do  with  the  religious  determination  of 
the  Christian  life  ?  What  is  the  function  of  Christ 
in  our  life  ? 

Forgiveness,  as  the  constitutive  principle  of  Christ- 
ianity, is  identified  with  the  Church.  Where  the 
Church  is,  there  is  forgiveness.  This  fact,  in  itself, 
establishes  a  certain  connection  between  Christ  and 
forgiveness.  For  Christ  was  the  founder  of  the 
Church,  and  therefore  historically  the  author  of  for- 
giveness. We  experience  communion  with  God  as 
a  privilege  common  to  the  fellowship  of  Christians; 
to  Christ  therefore  as  the  founder  of  that  fellowship 


66  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

we  trace  the  forgiveness  which  brought  us  into  that 
communion.  At  the  fountain-head  of  that  stream 
which  from  its  small  beginning  has  grown  to  be  a 
mighty  river,  fructifying  man's  life  and  clothing  it 
with  all  the  adornments  of  civilisation,  sw^eet  man- 
ners, culture,  unselfish  devotion,  heroic  endeavour, 
love  of  truth  and  of  justice,  high  aspirations,  stands 
the  figure  of  the  Son  of  man.  From  him  issues  the 
stream  of  the  water  of  life.  The  Christian  Church 
with  its  essential  principle  of  forgiveness  marking 
it  off  by  a  distinct  line  from  the  world,  points  ever 
back  to  its  Founder,  to  him  who  came  and  an- 
nounced that  "  The  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand." 
In  this  historic  fact  of  the  founding  of  the  Church 
by  Christ  we  have  the  connection  between  him  and 
the  principle  of  forgiveness.  He  brought  it  into 
the  world.  So  far  there  can  be  no  possibility  of 
doubt.  Men  in  this  our  day  feel  themselves  brought 
back  from  sin  and  reconciled  to  God  and  in  that 
reconcilation  they  experience  a  new  life,  because  of 
what  Christ  did  and  said  eighteen  hundred  years 
ago. 

But  this  places  us  before  a  great  problem,  one 
which  has  exercised  the  powers  of  the  keenest  in- 
tellects:  Did  Christ  only  preach  forgiveness?  Was  it 
his  office  simply  to  declare  it  as  God's  messenger? 
Or,  did  Christ  by  what  he  did  effect  forgiveness?  did 
he  make  forgiveness  possible?  There  is  this  dividing 
of  the  ways.  There  are  these  two  alternatives.  The 
one  conception  of  Christ  is  that  of  a  prophet,  the 
greatest  in  a  long  line  of  prophets,  but  still  essen- 


THE   ATONEMENT.  67 

tially  on  a  level  with  the  ancient  prophets.  To  the 
belief  in  Christ  as  a  prophet  may  be  added  the  attri- 
bute of  divinity,  and  yet  the  conception  of  his  office 
may  remain  unchanged;  he  came  \.o prcacJi  a  higher 
truth,  to  announce  to  man  a  God  who  forgives  sins. 
According  to  this  theory  it  only  needed  one  emin- 
ently endowed  to  bring  the  truth  of  forgiveness 
home  to  man.  Let  it  be  clearly  and  forcibly  pre- 
sented, as  Christ  presented  it,  and  man  will  grasp 
and  cherish  it.  This  is  the  favourite  theory 
of  those  who  place  a  great  deal  of  stress  upon  en- 
lightenment, whose  panacea  is  education.  As  soon 
as  man  knows  right  — so  they  reason — he  will  do 
right.  Christ  therefore  came  to  teach,  to  reveal  the 
truth.  His  function  was  to  bring  a  new  knowledge. 
The  fault  of  this  theory  is  primarily  that  it  under- 
values the  ethical  problem  of  humanity.  Doubt- 
less, enlightenment  can  do  much  for  humanity. 
But  it  must  be  a  broader  and  deeper  enlightenment 
than  that  which  the  mere  infusion  of  knowledge  im- 
plies. An  English  teacher  has  defined  education  to 
be  "  the  transmission  of  life,  from  the  living,  through 
the  living,  to  the  living."  '  Taking  life  in  its  fullest 
meaning,  no  words  could  more  accurately  express 
the  law  of  Christ's  work  for  man.  Life  is  some- 
thing more  than  knowledge,  it  includes  the  spiritual 
and  the  ethical  ideal.  As  such,  life  can  be  derived 
only  from  the  source  of  all  life,  Christ.  From  him 
it  is  transmitted,  through  the  living,  the  Church. 
Life  touching  life:  this  is  the  idea  of  Christian  edu- 

'  Thring,   Theory  and  Practice  of  Teaching,  p.  27. 


68  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

cation.  How  meagre,  how  inadequate,  compared 
with  this,  is  the  idea  that  mere  enHghtenment, 
ignoring  all  the  richer  part  of  life,  its  strong  im- 
pulses and  passions,  its  moral  sense  and  aspirations, 
ever  had  or  ever  will  have  the  power  to  regenerate 
humanity.  No  more  disappointing  delusion  has 
ever  taken  hold  of  man.  The  wav  back  from  wron^ 
to  right,  from  the  sense  of  guilt  to  peace  of  mind,  is 
a  more  difficult  process  than  the  champions  of  en- 
lightenment fancy,  who  in  a  light-hearted  way  re- 
solve the  problem  of  human  sin  into  the  ignorance 
of  childhood  which  needs  only  instruction  for  the 
human  race  to  outgrow.  Such  a  misconception 
reveals  a  total  misunderstanding  of  the  nature  of 
those  forces  that  operate  most  powerfully  upon  man. 

If  Christ  had  been  only  a  prophet  and  had  done 
no  more  than  preach  the  truth,  he  would  certainly 
have  failed  as  every  prophet  before  him  failed.  But 
why  did  Christ  not  fail  ?  Why  is  the  history  of 
mankind  since  Christ  so  vastly  different  from  the 
history  of  the  centuries  before  the  Christian  era  ? 
Surely,  for  no  other  reason  than  that  in  Christ  God 
dealt  with  the  great  problem  of  humanity  in  a  way 
essentially  new,  that  Christ  was  something  more 
than  a  prophet,  that  he  brought  to  bear  upon  man's 
life  a  motive  far  more  effective  than  mere  know- 
ledge. 

Secondly,  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  is 
inconsistent  with  the  prophetical  theory  of  Christ's 
mission.  There  are  the  words  of  Christ  at  the  insti- 
tution of  the   last   supper.     They   might  of  them- 


THE    ATONEMENT.  69 

selves  be  interpreted  upon  the  assumption  that  he 
was  a  mere  preacher  of  forgiveness.  But  when 
taken  in  connection  witli  his  intention  of  estabUsh- 
ing  a  new  covenant  they  must  mean  something  more. 
If  Christ  made  a  covenant  between  God  and  man, 
he  was  more  than  a  mere  prophet.  Furthermore, 
this  theory  offers  no  explanation  of  Christ's  ex- 
pressed estimation  of  himself  and  his  mission.  If 
all  Christ  did  was  to  declare  forgiveness,  what  will 
you  make  of  such  expressions  as  :  "  Come  unto  me, ' ' 
"  I  am  the  good  shepherd,"  "  Abide  in  me,"  **  I 
am  the  vine,"  and  many  others  of  like  nature  ? 
How,  finally,  according  to  this  theory,  shall  we  un- 
derstand those  words:  "  The  Son  of  man  came  to 
give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many  "  ?  Hardly  less 
urgent  is  the  objection  from  the  view  which  the 
writers  of  the  epistles  held.  I  need  not  cite  pas- 
sages to  prove  that  St.  Paul  believed  in  Christ  as 
something  more  than  a  preacher  of  forgiveness.  It 
will  readily  be  seen  that  to  reduce  gospels  and 
epistles  to  the  level  of  this  theory  would  amount 
to  such  an  emasculation  of  the  New  Testament  as 
to  create  as  large  a  problem  as  had  been  disposed  of. 
This  brings  us  to  the  third  objection.  To  make 
of  Christ  a  mere  prophet  is  an  intolerable  offence  to 
the  Christian  consciousness :  and  this,  by  making  of 
Christ  himself  an  unessential  element  in  the  Christ- 
ian system.  If  Christ  only  declared  God's  forgive- 
ness, it  is  clear  that  there  is  a  possible  Christianity 
without  Christ.  One  might  overleap  Christ.  When 
forgiveness  has  been  grasped  Christ  becomes  unncc- 


70  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

essary.  He  is  a  mere  accident  in  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion, Christianity  may  be  conceived  with  Christ  left 
out.  But  the  heart  of  Christendom  has  instinctively 
clung  to  Christ  as  the  essential  element  of  Christian- 
ity. You  cannot  conceive  of  a  Christianity  without 
Christ.  Any  theory  which  assigns  to  him  a  merely 
accidental  position  in  the  Christian  scheme  has 
against  it  the  weight  of  the  Christian  consciousness 
of  all  the  ages. 

We  may  therefore  consider  this  conclusion  estab- 
lished :  Christ  is  an  essential,  permanent,  necessary 
factor  in  the  plan  of  salvation.  No  theory  that 
ascribes  to  him  a  secondary  position  is  true  to  the 
facts.  Christ  is  effectively  instrumental  in  bringing 
forgiveness  to  man.  But  here  again  we  are  placed 
before  a  dilemma:  how  are  we  to  understand  that 
necessity  ?  is  it  God's  necessity  or  man's  ?  Was  it 
necessary  that  Christ  should  live  and  suffer  because 
God  could  not  otherwise  save  man  ?  or  because 
man  could  not  otherwise  be  saved  ?  We  are  thus 
brought  face  to  face  with  the  various  theories  of  the 
atonement. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  give  an  exhaustive  survey 
of  the  history  of  this  doctrine.  There  are  a  few 
general  types  around  which  many  variations  are 
grouped,  and  it  will  be  sufficient  to  refer  to  the 
principal  ones  of  these  types.  In  the  Greek  Church 
theological  thought  was  dominated  by  the  idea  of 
the  perfection  or  immortalisation  of  man  through 
Christ.  So  far  as  there  was  any  recognition  of 
a   redemption,    it    was   conceived    as    having   been 


THE    ATONEMENT.  71 

effected  by  a  ransom  paid  to  Satan,  namely  the 
ransom  of  Christ's  life.  Modifications  of  this  theory 
long  retained  their  hold  in  the  Christian  Church. 
Traces  of  it  are  possibly  found  in  the  homily  on  the 
Salvation  of  mankind  ;  although  it  is  not  stated 
directly  to  whom  the  ransom  was  paid. 

The  theory  of  the  atonement  which  has  taken  the 
strongest  hold  within  the  limits  of  orthodox  Christ- 
ianity is  that  which  bears  the  name  of  Anselm.  It 
is  called  from  him  because  he  was  the  first  to  gather 
up  the  thoughts  upon  the  atonement,  which  had 
been  floating  about,  and  to  combine  them  into  a 
system.'  Theological  subtlety  has  been  intensely 
busy,  has  complicated  the  doctrine  with  extensive 
ramifications,  and  has  produced  a  bewildering  variety 
of  modifications.  But  the  central  point,  the  one 
essential  element  of  this  type,  is  the  thought  ex- 
pressed by  the  word  Satisfaction.  God  could  not 
forgive  man's  sin  unless  his  justice  or  his  honour 
were  satisfied,  and  that  satisfaction  was  made  by 
Christ.  That  satisfaction  may  be  conceived  as 
having  been  rendered  in  several  ways,  as  punish- 
ment or  as  the  payment  of  a  debt.  Something  must 
be  paid  for,  something  must  be  made  up  to  God  ; 
there  must  be  a  propitiation,  a  reconciling  of  some- 
thing in  God,   before  he  can  forgive.     God  is  not 

'  To  guard  against  misunderstanding,  I  will  state  that  the  criticism 
which  follows  is  directed  against  the  Anselmic  doctrine,  as  it  is  com- 
monly held  and  taught  to-day.  I  have  no  acquaintance  with  the 
writings  of  Anselm,  and  experience  teaches  us  to  guard  against  a 
hasty  identification  of  the  views  of  the  master  with  those  of  his  sup- 
posed followers. 


72  THE    KINGDOM   OF    GOD. 

free  of  himself  to  forgive.  The  field  of  theology  is 
covered  with  the  remains  of  systems  which  have 
sought  to  make  this  assumption  plausible.  We 
shall  see  that,  as  the  theory  is  commonly  under- 
stood, it  leads  to  a  fatal  objection.  At  this  point 
it  is  worth  while  to  stop  to  consider  an  interesting 
fact,  already  referred  to,  concerning  the  antecedents 
of  this  doctrine. 

There  had  been  in  the  Latin  Church  from  the  be- 
ginning a  tendency  to  a  legal  view  of  religion.  The 
genius  for  the  law  which  had  characterised  the 
Roman  State  was  received  as  an  inheritance  by  the 
Latin  Church.  To  the  converted  barbarian  nations 
the  Church  was  represented  largely  as  a  system  of 
legal  enactments.  The  Gospel  as  a  "  glad  news  " 
became  obliterated,  the  sum  of  religion  was  what 
man  must  do,  what  he  must  believe,  what  he  Diust 
pay.  The  tendency  was  to  draw  more  and  more 
of  Christianity  within  the  scope  of  the  law.  Finally, 
the  great  doctrines  themselves  yielded  to  this  ten- 
dency, and  came  to  be  judicially  interpreted.  Li 
the  course  of  time  legal  phrases  and  their  correspond- 
ing conceptions  had  made  themselves  at  home  in 
theological  phraseology,  such  as  Judge,  Indictment, 
Satisfaction,  Penalty. 

The  use  of  terms  in  analogy  is  very  insidious  and 
apt  to  be  misleading.  In  the  sphere  of  religion, 
where  we  are  dealing  with  spiritual  things,  we  make 
very  large  use  of  this  form  of  speech  ;  all  the  greater 
should  be  our  care  to  see  that  the  analogy  is  jus- 
tified.    For  after  the  term  wliich  wc  have  borrowed 


THE    ATONEMENT.  73 

from  another  sphere  has  been  used  for  a  sufficient 
length  of  time,  it  comes  to  be  considered  as  having 
a  native  right  in  its  new  surroundings  and  we  are 
apt  to  forget  that  it  is  borrowed.  So  it  has  been 
with  the  legal  phrases  used  in  religion.  Their 
origin  has  been  lost  sight  of.  The  relation  sug- 
gested by  the  Anselmic  theory  of  the  atonement 
between  God  and  man  has  been  unreservedly  ac- 
cepted. The  fact  seems  to  have  been  lost  sight  of, 
that  the  use  of  legal  terms  and  the  conceptions  of 
legal  processes  in  religion  are  merely  the  application 
to  the  spiritual  and  heavenly  of  terms  and  forms  bor- 
rowed from  one  circumscribed  sphere  of  human  life. 
The  world  of  thought  in  which  the  Christian  mind 
to-day  largely  moves  Is  the  world  of  law.  One  nar- 
row sphere  of  human  interests  Is  expanded  so  as  to 
bring  under  the  sway  of  its  ruling  principles  all  the 
fundamental  conceptions  affecting  the  eternal  well- 
being  of  man.  This  view  makes  the  kingdom  of 
God  a  huge  Roman  empire.  The  question  is, 
whether  this  analogy  is  justified. 

The  third  type  of  doctrine  of  the  atonement  Is 
that  of  Abelard.  The  fundamental  conception  un- 
derlying Abelard's  theory  Is  that  of  God's  love. 
Christ  in  his  life  and  his  death  Is  the  expression  of 
God's  love.  There  was  no  reconciliation  necessary 
between  the  demands  of  justice  and  those  of  love. 
Christ  did  not  propitiate  the  wrath  of  God.  What- 
ever God's  justice  is,  it  is  subordinate  to  his  love. 
The  manifestation  of  God's  love  in  the  life  and 
death  of  Christ  was  given  In  order  to  awaken  man's 


74  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

love  of  God.  God  might  have  forgiven  sins  with- 
out Christ,  but  Christ  was  necessary  to  induce  man 
to  confide  in  God.  Other  elements  are  attached  to 
this  theory :  the  recognition  of  Christ  as  the  head 
of  humanity  whose  merits  are  imputed  to  man,  and 
the  conception  of  Christ's  continued  intercession  for 
us  in  heaven.  But  the  essential  feature  is  the  con- 
ception of  the  life  and  death  of  Christ  as  being  the 
expression  of  God's  love  for  man  to  awaken  his 
love. 

Of  these  three  theories,  thus  briefly  outlined,  we 
may  leave  out  of  view  the  first.  It  belongs  entirely 
to  the  past.  The  other  two,  those  named  after 
Anselm  and  Abelard,  may  be  taken  as  the  opposite 
poles  towards  which  all  modifications  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  atonement  tend  to  approximate.  They 
agree  in  making  Christ  an  essential  element  in  the 
Christian  system,  but  they  differ  in  that  the  first 
makes  Christ  necessary  on  God's  account,  the 
second  on  account  of  man. 

The  first  represents  the  most  widely  accepted 
view.  It  is  the  view  which  is  generally  considered 
as  underlying  all  "  personal  religion."  This  implies 
a  keen  sense  of  sin,  the  consciousness  of  God's  wrath 
resting  upon  me  as  a  sinner,  the  impossibilty  of  my 
appeasing  that  wrath,  the  joyful  acceptance  of  the 
assurance  that  Christ  has  borne  my  sins  and  saved 
me  from  God's  wrath.  It  is  commonly  supposed 
impossible  to  bring  the  sense  of  forgiveness  home 
to  the  sinner  unless  he  is  assured  that  the  punish- 
ment which  he  should   bear,  is   borne   by  another. 


TFTP]    ATOXEMENT.  VO 

This  means  that  the  sinner  will  not  believe  in  for- 
giveness unless  he  understands  just  how  God  for- 
gives. But  the  sinner  who  has  so  much  theological 
curiosity  may  ask  further  :  If  Christ  induced  an  angry 
God  to  forgive  sins,  who  induced  God  to  send 
Christ  ?  In  fact,  the  practical  necessity  of  this  view 
is  an  unwarranted  assumption.  Christ  has  perhaps 
been  presented  to  the  sinner  most  frequently  with 
this  view  of  the  meaning  of  his  life  and  death  ac- 
companying the  presentation.  But  that  does  not 
prove  that  there  is  not  a  power  in  Christ's  life  and 
death  to  bring  assurance  of  forgiveness  without  this 
theory.' 

On  the  other  hand,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  according  to  this 
theory,  has  been  and  is  still  a  great  stumbling-block. 
If  it  were  this  in  the  sense  in  which,  according  to 
St.  Paul,  the  gospel  was  a  stumbling-block  to  the 
Jews,  this  would  be  no  objection.  But  it  is  a 
stumbling-block,  not  so  much  to  the  worldly  as  to  sin- 

'  I  have,  since  writing  the  above,  again  read  Lyttleton's  essay  on 
the  Atonement  in  Lux  Mundi.  One  is  strongly  impressed  with  the 
noble  tone  of  this  as  of  the  other  writings  in  that  volume.  But  I 
was  also  impressed  with  the  artificiality  of  the  doctrine  as  there  pre- 
sented. After  all,  the  crux  of  the  question  lies  in  the  assertion,  strongly 
insisted  upon  by  Mr.  Lyttleton,  of  the  practical  and  spiritual  necessity 
of  a  propitiation.  If  the  belief  in  the  propitiatory  value  of  the  death 
of  Christ  is  an  essential  condition  of  our  religious  life,  it  isa  "  mystery," 
which  we  have  to  acknowledge,  although  we  cannot  explain  it.  I 
cannot  accept  this  view.  Compare  on  the  other  hand  \\'illiam  Law's 
essay  on  the  Atonement.  Law  was  the  author  of  the  Serious  Call  to 
a  Devout  and  Holy  Life,  which  strongly  influenced  John  Wesley  and 
which  made  an  epoch  in  the  life  of  Doctt)r  Johnson. 


76  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

cere  seekers  for  truth,  to  men  who  are  longing  for  an 
adequate  satisfaction  for  their  reHgious  wants,  but 
do  not  find  it  in  a  doctrine  which  puts  insuperable 
difficulties  in  the  path  of  honest  thought. 

What  are  these  difficulties  ?  We  have  seen  that 
the  essential  point  of  this  doctrine  as  commonly 
held  is  the  conception  of  a  necessary  satisfaction  of 
God's  justice.  The  difficulty  comes  when  you 
pursue  this  thought  to  its  consequences  in  the 
nature  of  God.  Here  is  the  touchstone  for  all  theo- 
logical theories :  What  effect  have  they  upon  our 
conception  of  God  ?  Is  God,  under  this  theory, 
thinkable  or  not  ?  The  consideration  of  this  point 
is  reserved  for  another  chapter,  when  I  shall  speak 
of  the  idea  of  God.  I  shall  here  only  anticipate 
the  conclusion,  that  the  Anselmic  theory  inyolves 
the  idea  of  God  in  a  fatal  contradiction.  It  sets 
God  against  himself  and  makes  it  impossible  to 
think  God.  It  is  therefore  opposed  to  our  religious 
interests,  and,  whatever  its  pedigree  and  prestige,  it 
must  be  rejected.  It  is  not  in  the  appeasing  of  an 
angry  God  that  we  find  the  necessity  under  which 
Christ  became  man,  suffered  and  died. 

The  solution  of  the  problem  must  be  sought  along 
the  lines  marked  out  by  Abelard.  The  life  and  death 
of  Christ  were  necessary  on  account  of  man.  Here 
we  start  with  God's  forgiveness  as  a  fact.  God  has 
pardoned  man's  sin,  God  is  read}^  to  receive  man 
back  into  communion  with  himself.  But  God  does 
not  force  man  into  communion.  Man  is  free  to  ac- 
cept or  refuse.      Christ  was  necessary  to  induce  man 


THE    ATONEMENT.  77 

to  turn  to  God  and  accept  forgiveness.  To  bring 
man  to  God,  not  God  to  man,  was  the  **  work  " 
which  the  Father  had  given  him  to  finish  (St.  John 
iv.  34).  For  this  he  instituted  the  new  covenant 
and  sealed  it  with  his  blood  "  for  the  forgiveness  of 
sins."  For  this  he  gave  his  life  a  "  ransom  (price) 
for  many  ' '  (St.  Mark  x.  45).  He  lived  in  perfect  com- 
munion with  the  Father  and  to  bring  his  disciples 
to  the  same  communion  was  his  object:  "  Father,  I 
will  that  they  also  whom  thou  hast  given  me  be 
with  me  where  I  am  "  (St.  John  xvii.  24). 

To  a  superficial  way  of  thinking  it  is  unintelligible 
that  to  bring  forgiveness  home  to  man  should  cost 
so  much.  Forgiveness  seems  so  natural.  But  they 
who  reason  thus  forget  that  the  very  naturalness  of 
forgiveness  is  owing  to  the  Christian  surroundings  in 
which  they  have  been  brought  up.  They  are  like 
people  in  a  house,  who  feel  how  firm  and  solid  the 
house  stands  and  wonder  why  the  architect  found  it 
necessary  to  build  such  strong  foundations  when  it 
stood  so  firm.  It  is  difficult  for  us,  brought  up  as 
we  are  from  infancy  with  Christian  ways  of  looking 
at  things,  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  Christian  in- 
fluences, to  realise  how  great  is  the  difference 
Christianity  has  made  in  the  world.  The  introduc- 
tion of  the  Christian  religion  was  the  raising  of 
mankind  to  a  new  level.  And  to  the  magnitude 
of  the  effect  corresponded  the  magnitude  of  the 
cause. 

It  requires  something  more  than  the  knowledge  of 
the  forces  which  operate  on  tjie  surface  of  life  to  un- 


78  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

derstand  man's  true  position  in  the  universe,  to 
see  clearly  the  steps  in  the  orderly  progress  of 
humanity  to  higher  levels  of  civilisation,  and  to 
forecast  the  future  destinies  of  the  race :  for  this  is 
needed  an  adequate  knowledge  and  appreciation  of 
ideal  forces. 

The  gradual  elevation  of  man  presents  to  the 
student  of  history  the  spectacle  of  a  process  im- 
measurably laborious.  Step  by  step  has  the  ad- 
vance been  made,  and  every  step  forward  has  been 
won  by  a  long  struggle.  Whatever  was  true  in  the 
earlier  ages  of  the  world,  when  man  had  not  so  far 
distanced  the  rest  of  creation,  when  as  yet  he  re- 
mained but  half-conscious  of  himself,  of  our  own 
age  we  may  confidently  say,  that  no  such  forward 
movement  could  take  place  unless  there  were  a 
mighty  spiritual  propelling  motive.  And  when  we 
ask.  What  is  this  propelling  motive  ?  we  are  led  to 
contemplate  the  ideal  forces  which  are  working  in 
men's  lives,  and  these  forces  we  find  focused  in  one 
point,  the  atoning  work  of  Christ  upon  earth. 

This  may  serve  to  mark  the  outlines  of  our  prob- 
lem. We  see  in  the  Church  of  God  many  influences 
at  work ;  each  of  these  may  be  considered  apart, 
separate,  isolated  from  its  connexions  and  ante- 
cedents. But  a  deeper  insight  will  trace  these  in- 
fluences to  the  one  central  fundamental  force,  the 
power  of  Christ's  atoning  work.  "  I,  if  I  be  lifted 
up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me  "  ;  this 
was  Christ's  prophecy.  He  told  of  the  Spirit  who 
should  come  to  take  his   place.     The  forces  which 


THE    ATONEMENT.  79 

work  for  Christ  are  spiritual  forces,  and  whoever 
has  eyes  to  see  can  recognise,  under  the  surface  of 
history,  underlying  the  obvious  phenomena  of  pro- 
gress, the  working  of  these  great  spiritual  forces. 
But  behind  these  spiritual  forces,  at  the  point  from 
which  they  all  radiate,  stands  the  figure  of  the  his- 
toric Christ,  the  story  of  his  life. 

The  Church  carries  out  the  work  of  Christ.  The 
power  working  for  Christ  in  the  Church  is  the  power 
of  personal  life,  by  its  nobility  and  sweetness  draw- 
ing men  to  the  knowledge  of  Christ ;  or  the  life  of 
the  Church  as  a  body,  by  its  Christian  activity  or 
through  the  highest  expression  of  its  life,  in  its  wor- 
ship, continuing  Christ's  influence  upon  earth.  It 
is  life  touching  life,  "  from  the  living,  tJirougJi  the 
living,  to  the  living,"  and  wherever  through  the 
influence  of  living  man  there  is  kindled  a  higher 
sense  of  human  possibilities  as  they  are  manifested 
in  the  life  of  the  God-man,  there  Christ  is  active. 
Christ  works  through  the  lives  of  living  men.  This 
is  the  great  truth  of  the  Church.  She  represents 
the  sphere  of  forgiveness,  the  principle  of  the  higher 
life,  because  in  her  has  always  dwelt  some  of  the 
power  of  Christ.  From  generation  to  generation 
she  has  passed  on  the  power  and  the  knowledge  of 
Christ.  Oftentimes  has  tradition  distorted  the 
features  in  the  picture  which  she  handed  down;  but 
never  so  that  some  of  the  truth  of  Christ's  life  was 
not  carried  with  it  and  some  of  the  power  of  Christ 
was  not  present,  either  in  the  worship  and  the  minis- 
trations of  the  Church  or  in  the  lives  of  those  who 


80  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

were  Christ's.  So  Christ  works  in  the  present 
through  the  spiritual  powers  in  his  Church.  There 
is  no  thought  which  gives  such  high  dignity  to 
human  life  and  lays  upon  us  such  weight  of  respon- 
siblity  as  this. 

But  wherever  there  is  the  power  of  Christ  in 
human  life  it  rests  upon  the  historic  Christ;  and 
therefore  I  said  that  the  manifestations  of  the  Spirit's 
power  centre  in  the  life  of  Christ.  That  power  is 
like  a  stream.  Men  come  to  drink  of  it  far  down  in 
the  valley;  but  the  water  issues  from  the  ground 
high  up  in  the  hills.  All  power  comes  ultimately 
from  the  life  of  Christ.  That  life  is  God's  mighty 
argument  with  men.  There  is  no  magic  influence 
going  out  from  Christ  to  save  man.  The  power  of 
Christ  is  the  power  of  his  earthly  life,  to  bring  home 
to  man  the  sense  of  God's  forgiveness.  A  man  may 
be  roused  to  an  appreciation  of  himself,  of  his  needs 
and  his  possibilities,  by  the  influence  of  a  life  of 
Christian  devotion  in  some  fellow-man.  But  the 
impression  will  be  fleeting  unless  he  goes  to  the  foun- 
tain-head of  power:  the  life  of  Christ.  God,  as  we 
believe,  has  preserved  for  us  the  record  of  that  life, 
and  it  is  through  the  knowledge  which  we  may  have 
from  the  gospels  of  the  inner  life  of  Jesus  that  he 
chiefly  exerts  his  saving  power.  The  wonderful 
power  of  the  story  of  Christ's  life  has  always  been 
felt.  Says  Leopold  Ranke  :  **  Even  from  the  worldly 
point  of  view  whence  we  consider  it,  we  may  safely 
assert,  that  nothing  more  guileless  or  impressive, 
more  exalted  or  more  holy,  has  ever  been  seen  on 


THE    ATONEMENT.  81 

earth  than  were  his  Hfe,  his  whole  conversation,  and 
his  death.  In  his  every  word  there  breathes  the  pure 
spirit  of  God.  They  are  words,  as  St.  Peter  has  ex- 
pressed it,  of  eternal  life.  The  records  of  humanity 
present  nothing  that  can  be  compared,  however  re- 
motely, with  the  life  of  Jesus."  These  are  the 
words  of  the  dispassionate  historian.'  This  is  the 
impression  which  his  keen,  comprehensive  mind 
received  from  the  life  of  Jesus.  But  it  requires  no 
keenness  of  intellect  to  appreciate  the  beauty  of 
that  life.  The  inner  life  of  Jesus  discloses  itself  in 
some  measure  to  all  who  seek  to  make  it  their  own. 
That  means  something  more  than  a  mere  intellectual 
appreciation  of  Christ's  life.  It  implies  the  sympa- 
thetic spiritual  appropriation  of  the  Son  of  God. 

The  influence  of  that  life,  as  it  enters  more  and 
more  into  the  consciousness,  will  be  twofold.  First, — 
it  convinces  of  sin.  Though  the  moral  sense  may 
slumber  in  many,  there  is  no  man  without  it,  and 
there  can  be  no  way  of  rousing  that  moral  sense 
more  effective  than  placing  before  the  mind  the 
beauty  of  that  one  life  and  its  sufferings  in  behalf 
of  man. 

Christ  brings  sin  home  to  man,  and  so  he  answers 
one  great  need  of  humanity.  Without  the  con- 
sciousness of  sin  there  can  be  no  forgiveness,  no 
peace.  Those  who  live  sunk  in  sin  and  brutishness, 
whatever  hope  there  is  for  them,  it  is  not  from  the 
law.  The  law  may  inspire  fear,  but  will  not  bring 
to  God.     Our  trust  is  in  the  influence  of  Jesus,  that 

^  History  of  the  Popes,  Book  I.  chap.  i.  §  i. 


82  THE    KIX(a)OM    OF    GOD. 

a  knowledge  of  the  one  perfect  life  will  stir  the  dor- 
mant aspirations  for  something  better  and  awaken  a 
consciousness  of  their  own  wants. 

And  then  Jesus  brings  home  the  assurance  of  for- 
giveness. At  the  other  extreme  from  moral  indif- 
ference is  moral  sensitiveness.  Many  are  so  keenly 
alive  to  the  greatness  of  sin  that  they  can  hardly 
believe  in  a  possible  forgiveness.  The  more  we 
learn  of  life,  the  darker  grows  the  picture.  The 
consciousness  of  human  sin  has  weighed  heavily 
upon  the  heart  of  Christendom.  But  the  very 
weight  of  the  sin  makes  the  feeling  of  relief  all  the 
greater  which  the  gospel  of  forgiveness  brings. 

Just  here  we  see  the  marvel  of  the  atonement.  It 
is  the  meeting  of  the  greatest  sin  with  the  greatest 
love.  What  is  the  sin  of  our  time  to  the  sin  done 
against  Jesus  ?  to  the  hatred  and  cruelty  inflicted 
upon  him  who  gave  his  life  for  man?  The  antagon- 
ism of  wickedness  to  goodness  reached  a  climax  in 
the  life  of  Jesus.  And  yet,  in  spite  of  it  all,  we 
see  in  him  an  unbroken,  unfaltering,  trust  in  God's 
purpose  to  carry  to  a  successful  issue  the  intent  of 
his  mission  and  a  steady  perseverance  in  his  work 
of  mercy.  Christ  might  be  stirred  to  burning  in- 
dignation against  the  hypocrisy  of  the  Pharisees, 
the  sight  of  Jerusalem  might  fill  his  soul  with  keen 
disappointment,  such  as  found  expression  in  his 
memorable  lament ;  but  neither  the  opposition  of 
his  enemies  nor  the  sense  of  present  failure  could 
make  him  waver  one  instant  in  his  faith,  that  his 
life  was  to  be  for  the  healing  of  the  nations,  or  turn 


THE    ATUXKMKNT.  8 


o 


him  aside  from  the  loving  service  which  made  up  his 
life's  work.  It  is  only  when  we  view  this  persistence 
of  Christ  against  the  background  of  man's  wicked- 
ness, as  it  arrayed  itself  against  him,  that  we  are 
able  to  measure  in  any  sense  the  significance  of  his 
atoning  work.  Is  there  anything  more  sublime  or 
powerful  than  that  calm  assurance  in  the  face  of  a 
cruel  death:  "  Peace  I  leave  with  you,  my  peace  I 
give  unto  you  "  ?  Surely  there  could  be  no  more 
convincing  proof  of  God's  forgiving  love  to  man 
than  the  life  of  Christ. 

This  then  is  the  twofold  effect  of  Christ's  atoning 
work.  It  rouses  the  indifferent  to  a  sense  of  sin, 
and  him  who  is  tempted  to  despair  of  man  it  as- 
sures of  the  divine  forgiveness.  But  here  we  may 
be  met  with  this  question :  Does  not  this,  after  all, 
conceive  of  forgiveness  as  something  apart  from 
Christ  ?  Does  it  not  really  make  Christ  unnecessary  ? 
Is  it  not  possible,  with  this  view,  to  have  fellow- 
ship w4th  God  without  Christ  ?  Theoretically,  yes. 
We  may  conceive  of  God  as  revealing  himself  to 
man  directly,  so  that  he  enters  into  fellowship  with 
him  without  the  intervention  of  Christ.  But  with 
the  conditions  such  as  they  are,  Christ  is  a  necessity 
to  Christian  faith.  There  may  be,  there  doubtless 
is,  a  faith  in  God  without  Christ ;  but  such  faith  is  an 
imperfect  faith.  It  is  a  faith  to  which  a  man  has  no 
right,  because  he  cannot  give  account  of  it ;  such  a 
faith  is  dangerous.  They  say  a  man  may  walk  over 
the  most  dangerous  places  asleep,  but  let  him  w^ake 
up  and  he  is  lost.     So  it  is  with  those  men  who  have 


84  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

faith  without  Christ.  The  faith  which  is  without 
the  consciousness  of  the  only  vaHd  ground  of  faith 
is  the  faith  of  sleep.  The  danger  is  that  some  sharp 
stroke  of  fortune  or  some  before  unheard-of  diffi- 
culty will  suddenly  awaken  the  man,  and  then  he  is 
lost. 

This  is  what  we  have  got  to  come  back  to :  Christ 
is  the  only  ground  we  have  of  believing  in  a  merciful 
God  who  forgives  sin  ;  and  we  would  not  believe  this 
truth,  which  almost  daily  experience  seems  to  belie, 
if  Christ  had  not  brought  it  home  to  us  in  the  most 
convincing  manner.  And  so  we  believe  that  God 
has  in  his  infinite  wisdom  appointed  Christ  as  the 
means  whereby  man  is  to  be  saved.  We  believe 
that  we  are  to  learn  to  believe  in  God  by  believing 
in  Christ.  We  believe  that  God's  forgiveness  em- 
braces those  who  shall  become  followers  of  Christ, 
his  Church.  We  believe  that  the  Church  is  the 
divinely  appointed  means  for  bringing  to  man  the 
benefits  of  Christ.  We  believe  therefore  that  God 
wills  that  we  should  receive  forgiveness  by  entering 
into  the  fellowship  of  Christ's  Church.  These  ap- 
pear to  us  elements  of  that  device  by  which  God  in 
his  love  seeks  to  save  man.  Farther  than  that  we 
cannot  go.  We  dare  not  draw  the  limits  of  God's 
mercy  and  say  that  if  some  man,  neglecting  the 
divinely  appointed  means,  the  Church  and  Christ, 
seeks  God,  God  will  refuse  him.  Enough,  that  we 
know  what  the  way  \s  for  i{s. 

It  is,  however,  important  to  point  out  that  Christ 
is  the  means  to  the  end.     Christ  pointed  away  from 


THE    ATONEMENT.  85 

himself  to  the  Father.  There  Is  a  certain  type  of 
faith  which  does  not  get  beyond  Christ.  In  so  far 
as  it  fails  to  reach  God  through  Christ,  it  fails  of  the 
standard  set  by  Christ.  Especially  is  that  form  of 
Christianity  which  rests  in  the  contemplation  of 
Christ's  sufferings  a  gross  deviation  from  Christian 
truth.  Christ's  sufferings  bring  home  to  us  the 
depth  of  human  sin,  but  the  brooding  contempla- 
tion of  his  sufferings  substitutes  an  aesthetic  feeling 
for  faith  and  is  a  sensualisation  of  Christianity.  We 
believe  in  Christ  because  in  him  w^e  find  God. 

The  place  here  assigned  to  Christ  in  the  Christian 
system  is  irreconcilable  with  that  modification  of 
Christian  theory  which  is  widely  prevalent  to-day, 
especially  among  those  w^ho  turn  aside  in  impatience 
from  what  seems  to  them  an  idle  strife  of  tongues, 
the  wrangling  about  doctrine.  They  seek  refuge  in 
the  simplicity  of  that  Christianity  which  sums  up 
the  Christian  truth  in  the  one  word  :  imitation  of 
Christ.  It  is  a  relief  to  cast  off  all  subtleties  and  to 
rest  in  one  easily  understood  principle.  One  of  the 
latest  exponents  of  modern  Christianity  tells  us  that 
this,  after  all,  is  the  great  thing.  "  Jesus,"  says 
Mr.  Gordon,  "  is  our  supreme  example.  There  is 
in  him  a  mighty,  imitable,  reproducible  character. 
The  imitation  of  Christ  is  the  task  of  humanity."  ' 
We  cannot  but  rejoice  that  different  men  may  find 
different  points  of  attraction  in  Christ.  But  the 
deeper  consciousness  of  Christendom  refuses  in  the 

'  George  A.  Gordon,   T//e  Christ  of  To-day,  p.  67. 


86  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

nineteenth  century,  as  it  always  has  refused,  to  con- 
tent itself  with  this  apparent  simplicity  and  to  recog- 
nise therein  the  essential  element  of  Christianity.  A 
little  reflection  will  serve  to  show  how  inadequate 
this  expression  is.  Imitation  is  of  the  outward  :  you 
can  imitate  a  man's  dress,  his  house,  his  voice,  etc. 
In  this  way  imitation  comes  prominently  into  play 
in  childhood.  The  child  learns  its  first  lessons  by 
imitating  the  actions  which  it  observes  in  older 
people.  But  imitation  in  spiritual  things  is  of  very 
limited  application.  We  may  occasionally  correct 
our  judgment  by  reference  to  the  example  of  Christ. 
But  how  little  adapted  this  principle  is  to  become 
the  regulative  principle  of  the  Christian  life,  we  will 
understand  when  we  try  to  conceive  of  a  character 
formed  by  imitation  upon  some  other  human  char- 
acter. Conceive  of  a  Cromwell  or  a  Washington  as 
great  because  they  imitated  somebody.  Attempts 
at  imitation,  as  is  well  known,  make  a  person  not 
great  or  good,  but  ridiculous.  There  is  that  in  the 
conception  of  human  character  which  is  incompatible 
with  imitation.  This  is  the  secret  of  character  which 
finds  its  only  explanation  in  man's  relation  to  God. 
If  we  honestly  seek  to  make  ourselves  as  Christ  was 
we  shall  not  try  to  piece  together  a  patchwork  of 
character  after  his  model,  but  we  shall  strive  to  ap- 
propriate the  fundamental  principle  of  his  life. 

The  idea  of  the  imitation  of  Christ  is  furthermore 
unfortunate,  because  it  places  us  on  a  level  with  him. 
To  say  that  Christ  is  an  ''  imitable,  reproducible 
character  "  may  be  from  one  point  of  view  an  inno- 


THE    ATONEMENT.  87 

cent  assertion.  There  are  doubtless  moments  in 
life  when  Christ  appears  as  one  of  us,  fighting  the 
same  battle  of  life.  But  such  language  is  wholly 
misleading  if  it  would  point  out  what  should  be  the 
Christian's  fundamental  attitude.  Christ  claimed  to 
be  unique;  his  significance  to  the  world  is  that  he  is 
unique,  inimitable,  not  reproducible.  If  it  were 
otherwise,  Christianity  would  never  have  been  what 
it  has  been  these  eighteen  centuries.  To  place 
Christ  on  a  level  with  humanity  is  altogether  to 
miss  the  personal  and  the  historic  significance  of  his 
life.  It  is  robbing  Christianity  of  its  religious  char- 
acter, to  make  it  a  morality. 

Christ  stands  out  from  all  history  as  the  one  human 
character  in  whom  God  made  himself  known  to 
man,  that  by  him  man  might  be  brought,  through 
forgiveness,  into  fellowship  with  God. 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE   ETERNAL   LIFE. 

We  have  traced  the  various  elements  that  enter 
into  the  consideration  of  the  Christian  Hfe  as  reHg- 
iously  determined.  The  object  of  Christianity  is  to 
reaHse  the  eternal  life.  Sin  is  the  barrier  to  the 
enjoyment  of  that  life.  God's  act  of  forgiveness  is 
necessary  to  do  away  with  the  effects  of  sin ;  this 
act  is  therefore  the  constitutive  principle  of  the 
Christian  life.  Forgiveness  is  bound  up  with  Christ ; 
through  him  alone  we  are  brought  into  fellowship 
with  God. 

The  subjective  manifestation  of  forgiveness  or 
justification  is  faith.  In  its  incipient  stage  that 
faith  is  simply  the  acceptation  of  God's  gift.  But 
it  is  a  growing  faith.  There  is  a  beginning  of 
the  Christian  life  and  a  progress.  What  was  at  first 
merely  an  act  of  spiritual  affirmation  becomes  en- 
larged, deepened,  enriched.  Faith  develops  into 
trust,  it  becomes  more  and  more  the  dominating 
principle  of  life,  it  matures  into  the  conscious  love 
of  God.  With  this  growing  faith  there  goes  hand  in 
hand  the  ethical  determination  of  life  to  make  the 
perfect  Christian.  But  the  religious  is  fundamental ; 
it  is  the  essential  determination  of  the  Christian  life. 

8S 


THE    ETERNAL   LIFE.  89 

Before  there  can  be  any  true  ethical  life  the  soul 
must  have  found  its  true  relation  to  God. 

We  will  now  consider  somewhat  more  fully  this 
"  eternal  life  "  into  which  the  Christian  enters 
through  Christ.  In  that  life  we  have  come  into  a 
living  fellowship  with  God ;  a  new  principle  asserts 
its  power  over  us;  an  influence  has  been  awakened; 
we  have  passed  into  the  spiritual  life,  in  which  there 
is  a  communication  of  spiritual  forces.  We  recog- 
nise in  the  eternal  life  a  direct  relationship  to  God, 
a  communion  or  communication  between  God  and 
man  which  is  realised  in  prayer.'  This  is  the  pecul- 
iarity of  the  God-centred  life,  that  it  looks  away 
from  self  to  God.  All  is  traced  to  God.  God,  not 
ourselves,  is  the  author  of  the  new  life,  the  principle 
of  growth  within  us:  "  It  is  God  which  worketh  in 
you  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure  " 
(Phil.  ii.  13). 

Here  we  stop  to  notice  a  striking  contrast  between 
character  as  formed  on  worldly  principles  and  Christ- 
ian character.  The  former  is  a  finality,  to  the 
Christian  there  can  be  no  finality  of  character.     The 

'  Ritschl's  treatment  of  the  Christian's  personal  relation  to  God,  and 
of  prayer,  is  obscure  and  unsatisfactory.  One  reads  and  re-reads  pas- 
sages bearing  upon  this  question  without  being  able  to  get  at  the 
exact  meaning.  He  denies  the  possibility  of  an  immediate,  direct, 
spiritual  relationship,  and  yet  one  has  a  lurking  suspicion  that  in  a 
way  peculiarly  his  own  he  allows  it.  The  same  is  true  of  one  of 
Ritschl's  most  eminent  pupils,  Herrmann,  in  his  Verkehr  des  Christen 
mit  Gott.  I  thought  I  understood  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  Ver- 
kehr," communion.  But  after  a  careful  perusal  of  this  volume  I  was 
sure  I  did  not  understand  it,  at  least  in  the  sense  in  which  the  author 
uses  the  word. 


90  THE    KINGDOM   OF    GOD. 

common  estimation  identifies  strength  of  character 
with  persistency  and  unchangeableness.  It  is  the 
crystal,  clear-cut,  sharply  defined,  unyielding.  Such 
have  been  many  who  have  powerfully  influenced 
their  fellow-men,  men  of  great  force.  Christian 
character  has  nothing  of  the  same  crystalline  im- 
mutability, and  therefore  it  is  by  the  undiscerning 
mistaken  for  weakness.  Because  it  is  God-centred, 
not  self-centred,  it  is  not  so  imposing;  there  is  an 
absence  of  the  self-assertion  and  the  show  of  confi- 
dence, which  have  always  won  the  plaudits  of  the 
multitude.  But  its  strength  is  of  a  finer  quality  and 
more  enduring.  It  is  the  strength  of  an  Athanasius, 
who  with  God  on  his  side  is  equal  to  the  world. 
Christian  character,  so  far  from  being  immutable,  is 
ever  growing.  With  every  increase  of  light  it  takes 
to  itself  new  strength  and  new  beauty.  So  far  from 
fearing  change,  it  fears  to  get  beyond  change.  For 
change  means  growth,  increase,  progress.  The 
thing  the  Christian  dreads  most  is  the  possibility  of 
that  rigidity  coming  over  him,  which  the  world 
takes  for  strength,  but  which  to  him  is  weakness. 
For  he  is  not  sufficient  unto  himself;  his  strength  is 
God's,  he  looks  above  for  all  he  needs,  and  he  hopes 
it  will  come  to  him  more  and  more.' 

In  the  introductory  chapter  it  was  pointed  out 
that  a  true  theory  of  psychology  demands  that  we 
trace  every  influence    upon   the  soul  in  the  active 

'  It  is  interesting  to  trace  in  art  the  difference  between  the  two  types 
of  character.  Compare  a  Venus  of  Milo  with  a  Sistine  Madonna, 
or  the  illustrations  of  DuMaurier  with  the  paintings  of  Fra  Angelico. 


THE    ETERNAL    LIFE.  91 

feelings.  We  may  not  deal  with  the  soul  as  if  it 
were  a  something  behind  those  feelings  in  which  it 
manifests  its  activity.  We  cannot  separate  the  active 
functions  of  the  soul,  its  will,  feeling,  and  knowing, 
from  the  soul  itself,  and  treat  the  latter  as  a  passive 
quantity.     We  cannot  say  that  the  soul  is  **  saved," 

forgiven,"  **  justified,"  "  brought  to  God,"  unless 
that  salvation,  forgiveness,  justification,  or  approach 
to  God  expresses  itself  in  the  soul's  activity  by  cer- 
tain feelings.  Therefore  we  shall  have  to  trace  that 
state  of  the  Christian  which  Christ  called  the  "  eter- 
nal life  "  by  its  manifestations  in  the  new  feelings 
awakened  in  the  soul  when  it  is  brought  to  God. 

What  is  the  scope  of  the  feelings  which  are  thus 
brought  into  activity  ?  The  question  has  very  great 
significance.  To  put  it  somewhat  differently.  What 
relationships  in  life  are  affected  by  religion  ?  What 
life  is  it,  or  what  part  of  life,  that  is  determined  by 
religion  ?  Schleiermacher  maintained  that  religion 
consisted  in  the  feeling  of  dependence  upon  God. 
This  view  would  confine  the  religious  determination 
of  life  to  our  relation  to  God.  It  is  our  feelings 
towards  God  that  religion  regulates.  But  from  the 
words  of  Christ  we  seem  to  get  a  hint  of  a  larger 
conception  :  "  In  the  world  ye  shall  have  tribulation  : 
but  be  of  good  cheer;  I  have  overcome  the  world  " 
(St.  John  xvi.  33).  By  the  word  '*  world,"  which 
he  says  he  has  overcome,  Christ  means  that  com- 
plexus  of  forces,  partly  physical  partly  personal,  with 
which  every  being  comes  more  or  less  in  contact, 
which  oppose  themselves  to  the  aims  of  the  individ- 


92  THE    KINGDO.AI   OF    GOD. 

ual:  sickness,  death,  disappointments,  injustice,  ill- 
will  of  fellow-men,  etc. 

It  is  impossible  to  leave  "the  world,"  as  so  under- 
stood, out  in  the  consideration  of  religion.  It  is 
impossible  to  understand  the  dependence  upon 
God  except  as  carrying  with  it  the  independence  of 
the  world.  Man's  religious  life  must  be  considered 
not  only  as  a  relation  to  God,  but  also  as  a  relation 
to  the  world.  In  these  two  relationships,  in  the 
feelings  which  belong  to  them,  we  shall  trace  the 
manifestation  of  the  "  eternal  life."  As  far  as  man 
enters  into  an  eternal  life,  he  must  feel  himself  in  a 
new  position,  not  only  in  regard  to  God,  but  also  in 
regard  to  the  world.  The  faith  in  GoiV s providence 
combines  the  feeling  of  dependence  upon  God  with 
that  which  should  characterise  the  Christian's  rela- 
tion to  the  world.  It  is  the  feeling  that  the  God 
whom  we  trust  will  so  guard  us  that  the  world  can- 
not hurt  us.  This  is  the  faith  in  God  as  Christ 
understood  it. 

It  is  a  shortcoming  of  our  modern  theology  that 
it  fails  of  a  correct  appreciation  of  this  faith  in  God. 
And  yet  it  was  an  essential  element  in  Christianity 
to  the  first  Christians;  for  nothing  is  so  marked  as 
the  emphasis  with  which  this  faith,  as  expressive  of 
the  superiority  to  the  world,  is  stamped  upon  the 
epistles  of  the  New  Testament.  St.  Paul  speaks 
of  "  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us 
free  "  (Gal.  v.  i).  He  can  mean  nothing  but  liberty 
from    the  world,   understood   as   the    complexus   of 


THE    ETERNAL   LIFE.  93 

forces  which  oppose  themselves  to  man's  pursuit  of 
his  end.  St.  Paul  points  to  a  well-known  experi- 
ence. The  "  natural  man  "  is  dependent  upon  the 
powers  of  nature  and  the  will  of  his  fellow-men  ;  they 
impress  themselves  upon  him  as  superior,  his  will 
cannot  obtain  the  mastery.  He  is  a  slave.  And 
when  St.  Paul  says  that  Christ  has  set  him  free,  he 
but  experiences  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise : 
"  Ye  shall  know  the  truth  and  the  truth  shall  make 
you  free  "  (St.  John  viii.  32).  It  is  the  paradox  of 
the  Christian  life,  that  without  any  change  of  out- 
ward relation  there  is  a  reversal  of  feeling, — a  process 
beyond  explanation  upon  a  naturalistic  hypothesis, 
yet  there  is  none  that  experience  teaches  as  so  true. 
The  bonds  are  broken,  the  feeling  of  dependence 
upon  the  world  is  changed  into  one  of  freedom. 
What  was  before  a  hindrance  to  our  free  action  be- 
comes an  aid  to  the  completer  development  of  our 
individuality. 

The  expression  of  St.  Paul  just  quoted  receives  its 
commentary  in  those  glorious  words  of  his  in  the 
eighth  chapter  of  Romans:  '*  If  God  be  for  us,  who 
can  be  against  us  ?  .  .  .  Who  shall  separate  us 
from  the  love  of  Christ  ?  Shall  tribulation,  or  distress, 
or  persecution,  or  famine,  or  nakedness,  or  peril,  or 
sword  ?  ...  In  all  these  things  we  are  more 
than  conquerors  through  him  that  loved  us.  For  I 
am  persuaded,  that  neither  death,  nor  life,  nor 
angels,  nor  principalities,  nor  powers,  nor  things 
present,  nor  things  to  come,  nor  height,  nor  depth, 
nor  any  other  creature,  shall  be  able  to  separate  us 


94  TlIK    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

from  the  love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our 
Lord."  And  that  same  sense  of  superiority  to  the 
world  is  in  those  other  words,  in  the  third  chapter 
of  the  First  Corinthians:  "  Therefore  let  no  man 
glory  in  men.  For  all  things  are  yours ;  whether 
Paul,  or  Apollos,  or  Cephas,  or  the  world,  or  life,  or 
death,  or  things  present,  or  things  to  come;  all  are. 
yours;  and  ye  are  Christ's;  and  Christ  is  God's." 
St.  Paul  speaks  elsewhere  of  reigning  through  Christ : 
**  They  which  receive  abundance  of  grace  and  of  the 
gift  of  righteousness  shall  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus 
Christ."  The  expression  here  as  elsewhere*  is  the 
Greek  verb  ftaffikeveiv  ;  the  idea  is  that  of  king- 
ship. The  Christian  is  a  king ;  the  Christian  faith 
gives  him  dominion  of  the  world.  He  now  rules 
those  forces  which  before  had  ruled  him.  This,  not 
in  the  sense  that  they  no  longer  affect  him  out- 
wardly, but  that  his  inner  life  is  untouched  by  them. 
He  is  above  them:  "  From  henceforth  let  no  man 
trouble  me ;  for  I  bear  in  my  body  the  marks  of 
the  Lord  Jesus."  The  disappointments  the  great 
apostle  had  suffered  in  his  efforts  for  Christ  would 
have  embittered  most  men.  He  simply  falls  back 
upon  his  own  individuality  as  it  is  fixed  in  Christ. 
Whatever  others  do  does  not  trouble  him ;  in  the 
sacred  sphere  of  his  own  personality  he  is  above  it  all. 

'  Rom.  V.  17:  cmp.  i  Cor.  iv,  8.  How  little  the  Pauline  idea  of 
"reigning,"  of  the  superiority  to  the  world,  has  been  understood,  is 
curiousl)'  illustrated  in  one  of  our  prayers.  In  the  Collect  for  Peace 
in  the  Morning  Prayer,  the  sentence,  "  Whose  service  is  perfect  free- 
dom," is  a  modification  of  the  original,  which  in  the  Sarum  Breviary 
reads,  "  cui  servire  regnare  est." 


THE    ETERNAL    LIFE.  95 

The  world-conquering  character  of  the  Christian 
faith  finds  striking  expression  in  the  often-repeated 
promises  in  the  Revelation  to  those  who  "  over- 
come," as,  to  take  one  verse  out  of  many,  in  chapter 
iii.  5:  "  He  that  overcometh,  the  same  shall  be 
clothed  in  white  raiment ;  and  I  will  not  blot  out 
his  name  out  of  the  book  of  life,  but  I  will  confess 
his  name  before  my  Father  and  before  his  angels." 
The  same  thought  is  echoed  in  the  Epistles  of  St. 
John  (I.  ch.  v.  5):  "  Who  is  he  that  overcometh  the 
world,  but  he  that  belleveth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son 
of  God."  The  idea  is  identical  with  that  expressed 
by  St.  Paul  under  the  name  of  Christian  liberty. 
We  find  it  again  in  St.  Peter's  Epistle.  Here  it 
appears  as  the  joy,  which  is  the  expression  of  the 
Christian's  superiority  to  the  world:  "  Rejoice,  in- 
asmuch as  ye  are  partakers  of  Christ's  sufferings; 
that,  when  his  glory  shall  be  revealed,  ye  may  be 
glad  also  with  exceeding  joy  "  (I.  ch.  iv.  13).  The 
same  in  St.  James  (ch.  i.  9) :  **  Let  the  brother  of  low 
degree  rejoice  in  that  he  is  exalted."  In  this 
Epistle  we  meet  again  with  the  idea  of  Christian 
liberty,  when  St.  James  speaks  of  "  the  perfect  law 
of  liberty  "  (ch :  i.  25). 

But  it  is  not  so  much  in  special  expressions  that 
this  mark  of  Christianity  is  to  be  sought  for  in  the 
New  Testament,  as  in  the  general  tone,  in  the 
underlying  feeling.  For  this  sense  of  dependence 
upon  God  and  trust  in  divine  providence  exists 
not  always  in  a  conscious  mental  act ;  faith  is  not 
always  present  to  the  mind  in  the  shape  of  a  dis- 


96  THE    KINGDOM    OP^    GOD. 

tinct  proposition.  We  possess  it  mostly  as  a  sort  of 
temper,  a  disposition  of  heart  and  mind,  an  under- 
lying ground-tone  which  gives  quality  to  our  spirit- 
ual life.  It  is  this  ground-tone,  this  underswell  of 
faith  in  God  as  against  the  world,  that  runs  through 
the  epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  and  more  than 
anything  else  gives  them  their  distinctive  character. 

This  faith  in  God  differentiates  the  Christian  spirit 
from  what  is  commonly  known  as  optimism.  The 
latter  is  a  haphazard  quality.  Take  two  men,  one 
an  optimist,  the  other  a  pessimist.  They  look  at 
things  differently.  Why  ?  Probably  for  one  or 
both  of  two  reasons :  for  the  personal  experience 
which  has  differently  affected  each,  or  for  differences 
of  temper  and  disposition  owing  to  physiological 
causes.  Optimism,  as  commonly  understood,  has 
no  other  foundation  than  these  two :  it  is  either  the 
result  of  a  fortunate  experience,  or  it  is  owing  to  a 
happy  disposition  or  good  circulation  and  digestion. 
Christian  optimism  has  nothing  to  do  with  these 
things.  It  believes  in  the  world  because  it  believes 
in  God.  It  makes  no  difference  what  may  happen; 
to  the  serene  confidence  of  the  Christian  the  ultimate 
victory  of  the  good  is  secure.  Christian  optimism 
has  a  very  wide  outlook ;  it  is  ready  for  many  dis- 
appointments, it  counts  only  upon  ultimate  triumph. 
It  has  a  very  broad  field;  it  cannot  embrace  less 
than  humanity ;  it  dare  not  bind  itself  to  one  nation 
or  race.  No  amount  of  Christian  optimism  would 
have  saved  the  Roman  empire ;  Christian  optimism 


THE   ETERNAL   LIFE.  97 

cannot  to-day  rest  secure  in  the  belief  that  God  will 
save  the  American  people,  if  they  defy  the  eternal 
laws  of  right  and  truth. 

Christian  faith  is  something  different  from  stoical 
resignation.  The  latter  is  passive  ;  it  lets  the  waves 
of  adversity  roll  over  it  without  opposition  or  mur- 
mur. The  spirit  of  Christianity  is  an  active  spirit. 
It  is  that  feeling  of  superiority  which  is  not  content 
to  yield  to  the  forces  of  the  world,  but  cherishes  an 
active  principle  of  opposition.  It  is  not  a  numbing 
of  the  powers  and  feelings  of  the  individual,  it  is  the 
most  pronounced  assertion  of  the  rights  of  individu- 
ality. It  is  the  courage  of  the  man,  not  the  indiffer- 
ence of  the  brute.  So  far  from  being  identical  with 
mere  endurance,  the  Christian  faith  is  full  of  joy. 
It  faces  life's  tasks  with  that  elated  feeling  of  mas- 
tership that  comes  alone  with  the  conviction  that  a 
power  higher  and  stronger  than  ourselves  is  on  our 
side,  that  "  all  things  work  together  for  good  to 
them  that  love  God."  With  that  courage  for  the 
struggle  goes  the  mental  peace.  We  found,  when 
we  spoke  of  sin,  that  the  state  of  separation  from 
God  is  characterised  not  only  by  an  accusing  con- 
science and  the  sense  of  guilt,  but  also  by  a  mental 
unrest  and  discontent.  It  is  the  feeling  of  help- 
lessness and  bewilderment  of  the  godless  life. 
Life  without  God  is  an  enigma,  a  confused  mass 
of  conflicting  phenomena.  It  is  for  the  want  of 
the  key  to  life,  which  is  in  God  alone,  that  the 
lives  of  many  seem   like  one  prolonged  labour  of 


98  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

Sisyphus,  a  straining  after  a  satisfaction  which  is 
never  attained. 

What  is  more  striking  in  the  Hfe  of  Jesus  than  its 
perfect  cahii  ?  It  is  this  which  carries  with  it  so  im- 
pressively the  suggestion  of  strength.  When  we 
think  of  the  feehngs  within  liis  breast,  how  tumultu- 
ous at  times  they  must  have  been ;  the  indignation 
at  wrong-doing,  the  impatience  with  narrowness,  the 
shock  to  his  patriotism,  the  pain  at  his  countrymen's 
ingratitude,  the  bitterness  of  failure,  the  wounding  of 
his  tenderest  sensibilities,  the  disappointments  over 
the  weakness  and  slow  comprehension  of  his  disciples, 
and  finally  the  physical  suffering — how  wonderful  is 
not  the  even,  unbroken  calmness  of  his  life  !  Through 
it  all,  perfect  self-possession,  a  heart  and  mind  at 
peace,  no  trace  of  discord  in  the  inner  life,  no  be- 
wilderment or  wonder  at  the  strangeness  of  his  lot, 
no  complaint,  no  impatience — just  a  calm,  self- 
collected,  God-centred  strength.  We  shall  always 
have  to  go  back  to  the  life  of  Jesus,  not  to  find  a 
model  to  copy,  but  an  ideal  of  Christian  character, 
which  shows  us  what  man  may  become. 

It  is  this  God-centred  strength  that  forms  the 
chief  element  of  Christian  character.  You  may  call 
it  by  many  different  names,  the  liberty  of  the  Christ- 
ian, independence,  the  dominion  over  the  world,  or 
simply  faith  ;  it  is  that  quality  which  has  translated 
itself  into  our  modern  vocabulary  in  the  use  of  the 
word  character.  It  is  the  same  as  that  which  Christ 
calls  the  eternal  Hfe.  It  is  the  "  life  hid  with 
Christ   in   God,"   the   outcome   of  that   for<^iveness 


THE    ETEKXAI.    LIFE.  99 

which  brings  man  back  from  a  state  of  ahcnation  to 
God,  to  the  source  and  sustainer  of  his  being,  and 
places  him  there  in  his  true  abiding-place,  that  on 
that  vantage-ground,  at  the  centre  and  fountain- 
head  of  all  being,  he  may  experience  what  else  were 
impossible,  the  value  of  his  own  soul  and  its  superior- 
ity as  against  the  world.  And  in  this  new  position 
the  Christian  enjoys  assurance  of  salvation.  He  is 
saved,  in  the  present  and  for  all  coming  time.' 

In  his  essay  on  Carlyle's  Cromwell,  Mr.  Mozley 
has  a  fine  description  of  the  poetical  type  of  the 
hero.  "  A  hero,"  he  says,  "  is  a  person,  who  in 
some  special  and  marked  way,  shows,  under  a  sur- 
face of  outward  activity  and  adventure, — that  of  the 
military  life  especially, — a  soul  superior  to  and  not 
belonging  to  this  world."  The  appellation  is  con- 
fined to  the  few  who,  either  in  ancient  or  in  Christian 
times,  have  been  exhibited  to  us  as  possessing  those 
qualities  under  peculiar  and  distinguishing  circum- 
stances. But  Christianity  has  really  made  heroism 
the  common  property  of  all.  It  is  no  longer  the 
distinguishing  characteristic  of  a  few  who  have 
drawn  the  world's  gaze  upon  themselves.  Heroism 
is  of  the  very  essence  of  Christianity,  and  it  is  im- 

^  It  is  at  this  point  that  the  practical  difference  between  the  Roman 
and  the  Evangelical  systems  is  especially  apparent.  One  of  the 
chapters  of  the  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent  is  directed  "  Contra 
inanem  hereticorum  fiduciam,"  and  closes  with  these  words  :  "  Cum 
nullus  scire  valeat  certitudine  fidei,  cui  non  potest  subesse  falsum,  se 
gratiam  Dei  esse  consecutum,"  It  has  been  well  said,  and  the  saying 
admirably  characterises  the  two  ideals  of  religion,  that  the  end  of  the 
Roman  system  is  to  be  safe,  that  of  the  Protestant  to  be  sure. 


100  THE   KINGDOM!   OF   GOD. 

possible  to  draw  the  liae  at  any  particular  degree  of 
glamour  and  brilliancy  which  must  surround  the 
man  to  make  him  a  hero.  There  is  no  generic 
difference  between  the  heroism  of  a  rock-chained 
Prometheus  and  that  of  the  poor  seamstress  in  the 
back  alley  working  her  fingers  to  the  bone  to  sup- 
port an  aged  mother,  uncomplaining,  sustained  in 
her  brave  struggle  by  a  Christian  faith.  Christian 
heroism  is  simply  superiority  to  the  world  exhibiting 
itself  under  adverse  circumstances. 

Our  popular  religion  is  much  at  fault  in  leaving 
out  of  consideration  this  relationship  of  Christianity 
to  the  world.  It  has  largely  failed  to  comprehend 
that  this  faith  in  God  as  against  the  world  is  the 
true  and  proper  goal  of  Christian  aspiration,  consti- 
tutes the  Christian  life.  There  has  been  always  a 
tendency  to  seek  for  a  higher,  more  distinctive, 
meaning  in  the  Christian  life.  This  trust  in  God's 
providence  was  too  simple,  it  became  associated 
with  "  natural  religion,"  and  its  connexion  with 
Christianity  was  lost  sight  of.  Something  above 
and  beyond  it,  something  peculiarly  and  essentially 
Christian,  was  demanded. 

Mysticism  claims  to  be  a  higher  type  of  Christian- 
ity. Not  that  there  is  not  something  mysterious 
and  mystical  in  that  faith  whose  essential  nature  is 
communion  with  God ;  but  mysticism  proper  is 
something  beyond  this.  As  a  movement  of  the  hu- 
man mind,  it  is  represented  by  several  most  import- 
ant historical  phases,  and  it  stands  for  a  distinct, 
well-defined  peculiarity  of  religious  devotion.      Mys- 


THE    ETERNAL    LIFE.  101 

ticism  pretends  to  a  more  intimate  union  with  God 
than  that  which  Christian  faith  ordinarily  imphes. 
In  the  union  with  God  the  mystic  endeavours  to 
anticipate  the  fruition  of  that  blessedness  which  is 
the  state  of  the  redeemed  in  heaven.  It  is  the 
catching  at  something  which  is  beyond  the  reach  of 
ordinary  mortals.  The  rapture  of  the  mystic  is  at- 
tained only  in  moments  of  ecstasy,  as  the  result  of 
special  efforts  by  which  he  is  raised  for  the  time 
being  above  himself  through  intensity  of  contempla- 
tion, fixing  the  mind  upon  the  divine  being,  where 
the  feeling  of  self  is  lost  in  the  sense  of  God.  The 
act  of  mystical  union  with  God  implies  an  abstrac- 
tion from  the  world.  The  world  is  forgotten,  the 
relation  of  the  man  to  the  world  is  set  aside.  If 
therefore  we  were  to  allow  that  this  mystic  ecstasy 
is  a  legitimate  form  of  devotion,  we  should  have  to 
modify  what  has  been  said  of  the  necessary  relation- 
ship of  the  Christian  to  the  world.  We  should  have 
to  acknowledge  that  there  is  another  higher  ideal  in 
which  the  world  is  left  behind,  where  the  religious 
life  consummates  itself  in  the  one  relation  to  God. 
We  should  be  obliged  to  distinguish  between  an 
ordinary,  everyday  Christianity  and  the  religion  of 
the  **  perfect."  This  is,  as  we  well  know,  what  is 
done.  The  "  religious  life  "  is  a  higher  life  than 
the  average  Christian  life.  Christians  are  divided 
into  two  classes :  those  whose  religion  is  confined 
within  the  limits  of  sober,  everyday,  Christian  ex- 
perience, and  the  perfect  who  alone  come  to  the  full 
fruition  of  Christian  blessedness. 

The    mystic's    religion    is   abstraction    from    the 


102  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

world;  Christ's  religion  is  superiority  to  the  world. 
The  two  are  fundamentally  opposed.  A  religion  in 
which  the  human  is  absorbed  into  the  divine  and 
the  world  is  no  more,  in  which  a  superlative  excel- 
lence of  Christian  devotion  is  sought  by  means  of  a 
transcendental  rapture,  is  foreign  to  the  spirit  of  the 
New  Testament.  It  is  human,  not  divine,  religion. 
In  the  line  which  it  necessarily  draws  between  the 
ordinary  and  the  perfect  it  demonstrates  its  anti- 
Christian  character.  The  religion  of  Christ  is  the 
world-religion,  because  it  is  the  religion  of  all  alike. 
It  does  indeed  count  on  growth  and  therefore  there 
are  differences  of  faith.  But  the  same  end  is  access- 
ible to  all.  There  is  in  the  gospels  no  reservation 
for  the  few.  There  is  no  esoteric  and  exoteric. 
Christianity  knows  no  privileged  class.  The  history 
of  monasticism  abundantly  proves  that  there  is  a 
peculiar  fascination  in  the  "  religious  "  life;  but  it  is 
the  fascination  of  selfishness,  its  almost  invariable 
accompaniment  is  spiritual  self-righteousness. 

Furthermore,  mysticism  goes  beyond  Christ.  In 
that  perfect  mystical  union  with  God,  where  the 
soul  is  emancipated  from  time  and  space,  and  in  an 
ecstasy  of  spiritual  devotion  becomes  incorporated 
in  the  divine,  there  is  no  more  Christ,  no  more  posi- 
tive Christian  belief.  Christianity  becomes  a  mere 
stepping-stone  to  something  higher  ;  when  that 
higher  is  attained,  Christianity  is  done  away  with. 
Whereas  the  true  fellowship  with  God  is  realised 
only  through  Christ.  So  far  as  we  have  any  true 
conception  of  God  it  is  found  only  in  Christ.     Any 


THE    ETERNAL    LIFH  lOo 

theory  of  religion  which  leaves  Christ  out  steps  be- 
yond the  bounds  of  Christianity.  Hence  it  is  not 
surprising  to  find  a  close  relationship  between  mysti- 
cism and  the  pagan  religions.  Mysticism  is  not 
Christian,  but  pagan.  It  is  at  home  in  the  theoso- 
phies  of  the  East,  not  in  the  religion  of  Christ;  its 
god  is  the  metaphysical  god  of  neo-Platonism,  not 
the  God  of  the  New  Testament.' 

Mysticism  represents  but  one  of  many  attempts 
made  at  different  times  in  the  history  of  the  Christ- 
ian Church  to  go  beyond  the  gospel.  Monasticism, 
asceticism,  pietism  in  all  its  forms,  and  the  Anabap- 
tist extravagances  follow  the  same  tendency.  They 
are  all  alike  in  this,  that  they  overlay  the  simplicity 
of  the  gospel  with  elaborations  of  doctrine  or  prin- 
ciples. 

As  efforts  to  grasp  at  a  higher  meaning,  to  realise 
a  deeper  devotion  in  the  Christian  religion,  such 
phases  of  life  and  belief  form  an  interesting  chapter 
in  Church  history.  They  owe  their  origin  to  the 
very  greatness  of  Christianity.      The  modern  view  of 

'  A  modified  type  of  mysticism  traces  its  origin  to  the  discourses 
of  St.  Bernard  on  the  Song  of  Songs.  The  Christian's  relation  to 
Christ  is  that  of  bride  and  l)ridegroom.  Reverential  love  of  Christ  is 
turned  into  the  play  of  a  morbid  phantasy  and  degraded  to  a  physical 
passion.  To  this  category  belongs  to-day  the  "marriage"  of  the 
nun  taking  the  veil  to  Christ,  and  the  revolting  cult  of  the  Sacred 
Heart.  In  the  same  direction  lies  the  morbid  contemplation  of  the 
sufferings  of  Christ.  "  In  the  Latin  Middle  Ages  the  verbal  profes- 
sion of  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  the  price  paid  for  the  permission  to 
love  him  as  a  man,  to  imitate  him  as  such,  to  (haw  him  down  to  one's 
own  level,  to  play  with  him  "  (Ritschl,  iii.  553). 


104  THE   KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

life  is  Christian,  it  represents  the  conquest  of  the 
world  by  Christianity.  And  this  view  of  life  has 
become  so  thoroughly  at  home  in  the  world  that  it 
is  only  when  we  reflect  upon  it  that  we  recognise 
its  Christian  character.  Christianity  has  created  the 
atmosphere  of  our  modern  life ;  but  because  we  have 
never  known  any  other,  we  are  apt  to  lose  sight  of 
the  fact  that  it  is  a  Christian  atmosphere. 

It  is  to  this  imperfect  appreciation  of  the  influence 
of  Christianity  in  the  world  that  is  due  the  tendency 
to  search  for  a  higher  meaning  in  the  Christian  re- 
ligion. The  correlate  of  this  tendency  is  the  divi- 
sion which  is  commonly  made  between  what  is  called 
Natural  Religion  and  Revealed  Religion.  Accord- 
ing to  this  division  there  are  two  layers  of  truth. 
The  lower  comprises  all  that  nature,  conscience,  and 
the  intellect  teach ;  the  upper  layer  is  made  up  of 
those  truths  which,  being  beyond  the  reach  of  human 
faculties,  Christ  revealed.  Among  the  truths  of 
natural  religion  is  placed  the  belief  in  God's  provi- 
dence. This  is  supposed  to  be  the  elementary  truth 
in  the  Christian  religion.  It  requires  no  revelation 
to  teach  it.  We  know  it  of  ourselves.  The  distinct- 
ively Christian  truths  go  far  beyond  it. 

It  is  here  more  than  anywhere  else  that  we  dis- 
cover the  inadequacy  of  our  modern  religious 
conceptions.  That  truth  is  made  the  first,  the 
elementary  truth,  the  starting-point,  which  in  reality 
is  the  most  difficult,  which  is  the  last  Christian 
truth,  the  outcome,  the  grand  conclusion,  the  ulti- 
mate result,  the  crown  of  the  Christian  system.      » 


THE   ETERNAL   LIFE.  105 

We  speak  of  the  **  modern  world  "  as  if  it  were 
altogether  a  different  world  from  that  of  bygone 
ages.  This  difference  is  apt  to  be  exaggerated. 
And  yet  there  is  a  truth  in  the  distinction.  Our 
life  is  different  from  the  life  that  went  before  us. 
What  we  call  "  modern  civilisation  "  is  modern  ;  the 
enlightenment,  the  progress,  which  we  boast  of  as 
being  a  characteristic  of  these  "  modern  "  times,  is 
real.  There  is  a  line  drawn  between  the  past  and 
the  present  which  is  clearly  defined.  But  there  is 
no  shallowness  so  hopelessly  shallow  as  that  which 
attempts  to  define  modern  civilisation  in  terms  of 
material  and  intellectual  achievement.  Not  a  few 
are  dazzled  by  this  kind  of  success;  they  identify 
the  progress  of  our  times  with  the  discoveries  and 
inventions  and  with  all  those  physical  accomplish- 
ments which  have  added  so  much  to  our  knowledge 
and  to  the  well-being  of  life.^  Such  do  not  see  that 
these  achievements  are  merely  one  manifestation, 
and  that  not  the  most  important,  of  what  consti- 
tutes the  real  progress  of  modern  times. 

The  distinguishing  character  of  modern  civilisa- 
tion is  its  energy.  We  find  this  energy  in  the  intensi- 
fication  of  activity  along   all    the    lines  of   human 

'  Compare  the  display  of  modern  intellectual  achievement  in  Fiske's 
Idea  of  God.  The  writer  seems  to  hold  that  in  some  unexplained 
way  this  intellectual  progress  has  illuminated  "  the  idea  of  God." 
Tennyson  is  wiser  in  what  he  says  of  the  "  flower  in  the  crannied 
wall "  : 

"  ,     .     .     if  I  could  understand, 
What  you  are,  root  and  all,  and  all  in  all, 
I  should  know  what  Gt)d  and  man  is." 


106  THE    IvlXGDO.AI    OF    GOD. 

interest.  This  is  true  of  all  that  concerns  the 
material  welfare  of  man ;  it  is  true  also  of  the  intel- 
lectual activities.  It  is  furthermore  true  of  certain 
activities  which  are  equally  characteristic  of  modern 
"  progress,"  although  in  their  effects  they  appear 
rather  as  a  return  of  the  tide  of  advance.  I  mean 
the  intensification  of  political  interest  and  the  spread 
of  social  agitation  among  the  masses,  with  the  deplor- 
able accompaniment  of  those  evils  which  books  like 
Bryce's  Aviej'ican  CoimnomvealtJi  or  Lecky's  Liberty 
and  Democracy  bring  home  to  us.  Human  faculties 
are  keyed  to  a  higher  pitch  of  vigour  than  ever  be- 
fore :  this  is  modern  civilisation. 

But  is  this  all  ?  Far  from  it.  He  possesses  a 
very  meagre  knowledge  of  the  true  forces  which 
underlie  the  varying  phenomena  of  human  history 
who  fails  to  discern  the  motive  cause  of  this  in- 
creased energy.  Underlying  all  the  phenomena  of 
history  are  great  spiritual  forces.  There  has  never 
been  a  movement  but  it  has  been  the  result  of  a 
spiritual  force.  It  is  this  deeper  view  of  history, 
which  underneath  the  material  effect  seeks  for  the 
spiritual  cause,  that  is  so  fascinating  to  the  mind 
when  it  has  come  to  a  realisation  of  the  fact  that  all 
we  see  on  the  surface  of  life  is  merely  the  manifesta- 
tion of  the  forces  underneath.  These  forces  are 
manifold.  Some  are  easily  detected.  Such  are  the 
love  of  power,  the  lust  of  gold.  They  are  great 
forces,  but  there  are  forces  which  are  greater  than 
these.  These  are  strong  in  individuals;  but  to  find 
the  motive  power  in  those  movements  which  cum- 


THE    ETERNAL    LIFE.  IdT 

prise  great  masses  in  their  scope,  we  have  to  famil- 
iarise ourselves  with  the  great  spiritual  powers. 

Underneath  the  intense  energy  of  the  human 
faculties,  underlying  the  exercise  of  interest  in  every 
line  of  human  progress,  is  that  which  alone  mfekes 
this  energy  and  interest  possible,  a  hopefulness,  a 
buoyancy,  a  confidence.'  The  more  we  realise  how 
the  mystery  of  human  life,  its  suffering  and  death, 
has  hung  like  a  dark  cloud  over  the  race,  the  more 
we  wonder  at  this  confidence  and  hopefulness.  Is 
it  natural  ?  Here  are  the  words  of  one  of  the  wisest 
who  lived  at  the  very  time  Christ  came  into  the 
world.  This  is  what  Pliny  the  Elder  thought  of  life 
and  its  prospects:  "  The  vanity  of  man,  and  his  in- 
satiable longing  after  existence,  have  led  him  also  to 
dream  of  a  life  after  death.  A  being  full  of  contra- 
dictions, he  is  the  most  wretched  of  creatures ;  since 
the  other  creatures  have  no  wants  transcending 
the  bounds  of  their  nature.  Man  is  full  of  desires 
and  wants,  that  reach  to  infinity,  and  can  never  be 
satisfied.  His  nature  is  a  lie, — uniting  the  greatest 
poverty  with  the  greatest  pride.  Among  these  so 
great   evils,    the   best   thing   God   has  bestowed  on 

^  It  is  the  energy  and  the  hopefulness  of  Christianity  that  struck 
the  intelligent  author  of  the  Diary  of  a  yapanese  Convert  most  forci- 
bly :  "  Why  is  it  that  heathens  in  general  go  into  decay  so  soon,  but 
Christians  in  general  know^  no  decay  whatever,  but  hope  even  in 
death  itself?  .  .  .  I  attribute  the  progressiveness  of  Christendom 
to  its  Christianity.  .  .  .  Enormous  yet  though  their  sins  are, 
these  people  have  the  power  to  overcome  (hem.  They  have  yet  no 
sorrows  which  they  think  they  cannot  heal.  Is  not  Christianity  worth 
having  if  but  for  this  power  alone  ?  "  (p.  200.) 


108  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

man,  is  the  power  to  take  his  own  hfe."  *  Here  is 
the  true  natural  theology.  With  man  growing  more 
and  more  conscious  of  himself,  ever  brooding  upon 
the  insoluble  enigma,  his  own  life,  what  more  natural 
than  that  suicide  should  seem  the  only  true  end. 
Had  man  given  way  to  the  despair  of  Pliny,  it  would 
have  been  only  what  might  have  been  expected. 
Had  man  in  that  despair  resolved  to  face  his  fate 
bravely,  had  he  steeled  himself  to  bear  the  inevit- 
able, had  he  for  all  these  centuries  endured  to  live, 
that,  too,  might  have  been  natural,  and  we  should 
admire  the  power  of  resistance  implanted  in  man.'' 
But  that  man,  without  hope,  should  develop  the 
intense  activity  which  he  displays  to-day — this  is 
impossible. 

The  train  of  reasoning,  whose  salient  points  I 
have  only  briefly  indicated,  must  lead  to  the  con- 
clusion that  what  we  call  modern  civilisation  is  pos- 
sible only  by  virtue  of  Christianity.  Christianity 
has  created   the    atmospheie   of  hopefulness  which 

^  Pliny's  Natural  History,  quoted  from  Neander's  Church  History, 
Introduction. 

'^  This  is  the  ideal  of  character  represented  in  Shelley's  Prometheus 
Unbound : 

' '  To  suffer  woes  which  hope  thinks  infinite  ; 
To  forgive  wrongs  darker  than  death  and  night ; 

To  defy  power  which  seems  omnipotent ; 
To  love,  and  bear  :  to  hope  till  hope  creates 
From  its  own  wreck  the  thing  it  contemplates  ; 

Neither  to  change,  nor  falter,  nor  repent  ; 
This,  like  thy  glory,  Titan,  is  to  be 
Good,  great  and  joyous,  beautiful  and  free  ; 
This  is  alone  Life,  Joy,  Empire,  and  Victory," 


THE    ETERNAL    LIFE.  109 

underlies  the  display  of  energy  that  characterises 
our  age.  That  hopefulness  is  simply  trust  in  God. 
Not  that  this  trust  exists  as  an  active  power  in  every 
individual  who  is  energetically  active,  but  it  does 
exist  in  society  at  large ;  it  exists  as  a  very  positive 
power  in  many  who  consciously  believe  in  a  guiding 
providence.  It  exists  in  many  more  as  an  uncon- 
scious disposition.  Take  away  this  trust,  and 
modern  civilisation  would  collapse  in  a  day.' 

It  is  because  we  see  this  confidence  everywhere 
around  us,  because  we  have  been  brought  up  in  it 
from  our  infancy,  because  we  have  never  known 
anything  else,  that  we  are  apt  to  forget  that  it  owes 
its  being  to  Christianity,  that  it  would  be  utterly 
impossible  without    Christianity,   that  in  this  very 

'  The  view  here  presented  is  of  course  diametrically  opposed  to 
that  which  Mr.  Spencer  maintains  with  so  much  force.  It  is  a  com- 
mon infirmity,  of  two  phenomena  which  are  evidently  related  to  one 
another  as  cause  and  effect,  to  choose  that  which  suits  one's  own 
theory  for  cause  and  the  other  for  effect,  when  the  relation  might 
just  as  well  be  the  reverse.  In  this  case  it  is  a  very  delicate  question. 
Taking  religion  and  practice  as  two  doubtless  related  phenomena, 
which  is  cause  and  which  is  effect  ?  Spencer  maintains  that  practice 
generates  religion.  "  It  was  not  the  creed  but  the  mode  of  life 
which  was  influential — not  the  theory  but  the  practice.  This,  indeed, 
is  the  general  reply  to  be  made  to  the  large  claim  put  in  for  Christi- 
anity as  the  great  civilizer,  etc."  {Principles  of  Sociology,  iii.  p.  477). 
The  drift  of  thought  has,  I  think,  been  away  from  Mr.  Spencer. 
His  mistake  is  that  he  does  not  recognise  the  religious  forces,  which 
exist  as  unconscious  and  half-conscious  feelings,  habits  of  mind  and 
views  of  life,  and  as  such  are  powerful  motives  of  action  among  the 
great  masses  of  Christian  people.  If  Christianity  were  simply  the 
conscious  belief  in  Christian  doctrines,  it  would  play  a  very  small 
part  indeed  in  the  world's  history. 


110  THE   KINGDOM   OF    GOD. 

hopefulness  and  confidence  we  find  the  effect  of 
Christ's  work  upon  earth.  And  forgetting  that,  and 
putting  it  down  to  the  credit  of  so-called  "  Natural 
Religion,"  we  worry  ourselves  to  find  out  what 
Christianity  really  is  and  we  impose  upon  ourselves 
an  unnecessary  yoke  in  the  shape  of  an  extraordin- 
ary exercise  of  devotion  above  simple  faith. 

An  objection  may  be  urged  to  the  view,  as  here 
stated,  that  Christianity  makes  the  energy  of  modern 
civilisation  possible.  First,  it  seems  strange,  upon 
this  hypothesis,  that  the  faith  in  God,  which  we 
have  claimed  as  eminently  the  outcome  of  Christian- 
ity, should  be  nowhere  so  beautifully  expressed  as  in 
the  Psalter,  written  long  before  Christ ;  so  that  we 
to-day  still  go  to  the  Psalms  for  the  highest  embodi- 
ment of  that  faith.  Secondly,  it  is  not  our  age 
alone  that  is  characterised  by  an  intense  energy. 
What  shall  we  say  of  the  age  of  Pericles  ?  Must 
there  not  have  been  a  hopefulness  and  buoyancy  to 
make  possible  the  masterpieces  of  Greek  art — and 
that  without  Christianity  ? 

This  is  true.  The  early  ages  of  the  world  did 
possess  hopefulness  and  confidence,  and  among  the 
Hebrews  a  pronounced  and  most  beautiful  faith  in 
God.  It  is  not  claimed  that  either  of  these  could 
not  exist  at  any  period  without  Christianity.  But, 
had  there  been  no  Christianity,  there  would  have 
come  a  time  when  these  qualities  would  have  ceased 
to  exist. 

Something  is  due  to  the  freshness  of  the  world  in 
the  earlier  stages  of  human  history.     The  life  of  the 


THE    ETKKXAL    LIFE.  Ill 

human  race  bears  a  certain  analogy  to  the  hfe  of  the 
individual,  in  that  there  is  an  infancy  and  a  maturity 
of  the  race.  The  characteristic  of  maturity  is  self- 
consciousness.  I  am  aware  that  it  is  dangerous  rashly 
to  assume  a  difference  of  our  age  from  any  preceding 
age.  Human  nature  is  alike  in  all  ages;  and  the 
phenomena  which  we  hold  to  be  peculiar  to  our  own, 
a  more  familiar  knowledge  of  past  events  often 
teaches  us,  have  been  equally  well  known  in  other 
periods.  But  w^e  cannot  escape  this  conclusion  that 
the  modern  world  is  different  from  the  ancient  in  its 
self-consciousness.  The  mind  of  man  has  tended 
more  and  more  to  return  upon  itself.  Not  that  they 
did  not  study  the  workings  of  the  mind.  We  re- 
member Plato.  But  they  threw  themselves  unre- 
servedly into  the  objective  external  as  we  cannot. 
We  are  held  back  by  an  overpowering  sense  of 
personality.  It  is  the  difference  between  heedless 
childhood  and  manhood  which  cannot  get  away  from 
itself,  but  is  forever  pursued  by  the  insistent  per- 
plexities of  its  own  mind. 

When  Christ  told  his  disciples  to  become  like 
little  children,  he  recognised  both  the  natural  bent 
of  the  child  and  the  effort  which  it  costs  the  man  to 
become  as  the  child.  The  childhood  of  the  human 
race  lacked  the  sense  of  independence  which  belongs 
to  maturity;  it  found  no  difficulty  in  believing  a 
God  or  many  gods,  although  even  then  it  required, 
as  we  believe,  a  special  inspiration  to  reveal  to  the 
Hebrews  the  truth  that  God  is  a  God  to  be  trusted. 
But  our  self-conscious  age,  in  the  sense  of  its  matur- 


112  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

ity  and  independence,  finds  it  increasingly  difficult 
to  return  to  the  conditions  of  childhood.  It  no 
longer  believes  as  the  child  believes.  The  simple 
child-faith  of  the  Hebrew  Psalmist  could  not 
have  lasted.  There  would  inevitably  have  stolen 
over  the  world  the  sense  of  hopeless  perplexity  and 
a  dark  despair  such  as  is  portrayed  in  those  words  of 
Pliny,  had  there  not  come  into  our  life  a  something 
which  brings  home  to  man  with  a  coercive  force  far 
beyond  that  of  human  voice  the  possibility  of  that 
trustfulness  of  the  child,  which  underlies  and  alone 
makes  possible  our  modern  civilisation. 

The  thought  w^hich  is  here  dwelt  upon  is,  by  a 
logic  which  is  precisely  the  reverse  of  the  true,  used 
to  make  it  appear  that  our  time  stands  less  in  need 
of  religion  than  the  past  ages.  Religion,  it  is  said, 
is  a  guide  for  the  immature;  we  have  grown  into 
manhood ;  we  dismiss  the  guide.  We  have  done 
with  it ;  the  world  having  gone  so  far  with  religion, 
can  now  do  without  it.  We  can  see  how  shallow 
such  talk  is,  how  for  the  very  fact  that  man  has 
passed  out  of  the  stage  where  he  acted  spontane- 
ously into  the  self-conscious  stage,  in  which  he 
probes  every  motive  of  his  action,  he  needs  religion 
more  than  ever  to  give  him  the  hopefulness  which 
is  necessary  for  life.  What  would  be  the  result 
should  Christianity  disappear  from  the  face  of  the 
earth  ?  Suppose  that  by  some  magic  there  should 
suddenly  come  upon  men  the  belief  that  Christianity 
is  a  delusion.  The  mind  is  staggered  in  trying  to 
conceive   the    catastrophe    that    would    follow    the 


THE    ETERNAL    LIFE.  113 

total  disappearance  of  faith.     This  is  certain :  what 
we  call  civilisation  would  be  no  more. 

We  have  been  led  into  the  foregoing  train  of 
thought  by  the  consideration  of  what  constitutes 
the  essential  character  of  the  Christian  life.  It  has 
been  maintained  that  the  faith  in  God's  providence, 
which  gives  us  security  and  dominion  of  the  world, 
is  the  principle  of  the  eternal  life  into  which  we  are 
brought  by  entering  into  fellowship  with  God 
through  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins ;  that  this  faith 
in  God's  providence  constitutes  the  essential  char- 
acter of  the  Christian  life,  that  therefore  nothing 
beyond  it  need  be  sought.  And  we  have  tried  to 
show  that  historically  it  is  this  very  faith  which 
makes  Christianity  the  supporter  of  modern  civi- 
lisation, that  this  faith  is  the  distinguishing  mark 
of  Christianity  as  a  social  religion. 

In  what  has  been  said  upon  the  latter  theme  it 
seems  to  be  taken  for  granted  that  there  exists  an 
unconscious  Christianity,  a  Christianity  of  those 
who  act  from  Christian  motives,  but  have  not  the 
Christian  belief.  And  so  much  indeed  we  must 
acknowledge.  Here,  however,  it  is  largely  a  ques- 
tion of  the  proper  use  of  terms.  I  do  not  know 
that  it  would  be  a  very  fruitful  discussion  as  to 
whether  those  could  properly  be  called  Christians 
who  do  not  consciously  believe  in  Christ.  But  it  is 
both  an  interesting  and  a  profitable  consideration, 
that  the  hopeful  outlook  upon  life  which  is  the  only 
motive  of  energetic  action,  which  produces  growth 


114  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

and  improvement  in  society,  is  distinctively  Christ- 
ian in  its  nature. 

We  can  see  clearly  that  there  must  be  a  nucleus 
of  conscious  believers  in  Christ.  This  function  be- 
longs to  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  the  sphere  of 
those  who  enter  into  fellowship  with  God  through 
Christ.  The  Christian  life  in  that  fellowship  is  not 
that  poor,  negative  kind  which  consumes  its  energies 
in  trying  to  avoid  sin  and  falls  into  the  worst  of  all 
sins.  It  is  the  positive  aspiration  after  an  ideal. 
That  ideal  is  nothing  else  but  the  perfect  life,  the 
possibility  of  life  which  is  beckoning  every  human 
being,  not  the  narrowness  of  a  so-called  "  religious  " 
life,  essentially  selfish,  reserved  for  a  few.  That  ideal 
is  but  one  for  all  humanity ;  we  are  too  weak  ever 
to  reach  it,  but  we  are  strong  enough  to  aspire  to  it, 
and  it  becomes  to  us  a  high  motive.  This  is  the 
life  which  is  filled  out  with  the  faithful  work  at  life's 
task  as  our  God-imposed  duty,  in  that  state  of  life 
unto  which  it  has  pleased  God  to  call  us;  the  life 
which  is  built  upon  an  unfaltering  faith  in  God's 
providence ;  which  finds  its  highest  expression  in 
prayer;  which  approves  itself  against  the  world  by 
the  practice  of  patience  and  humility. 

Let  us  rejoice  if  God  finds  his  way  into  the  human 
soul  by  other  means  than  by  Christ.  That  does  not 
shake  our  belief  that  the  Church  is  the  divinely  ap- 
pointed means,  the  sphere  in  which  God  has  or- 
dained that  man  should  enter  into  fellowship  with 
him.  The  Church  then  is  the  seat  of  the  power 
which  Christianity  has  brouc^ht  into  the  world ;  the 


THE    KTEHXAL    LIFE.  115 

life  of  its  Christian  fellowship  is  the  living  influence 
of  Christianity  among  men.  God  does  not  work  by 
magic  charms ;  but  he  does  work  by  the  lives  of  men. 
And  the  life  of  the  true  Christian  fellowship  is  the 
life  instinct  with  the  life  of  Christ;  it  is  the  life  of 
fellowship  with  God  based  upon  forgiveness.  In 
the  Church's  life  is  the  motive  power  of  Christian- 
ity. To  it  has  been  committed  by  God  the  future 
of  the  world.  It  draws  men  into  itself  and  by  an 
appeal  which  is  more  powerful  than  any  other  it 
opens  the  way  in  their  hearts  for  the  entrance  of 
God.     Is  not  this  the  truth  of  the  Saviour's  promise  : 

Whosesoever  sins  ye  forgive  they  are  forgiven 
them  "  ?  This  is  the  mystery  of  that  strange  power 
above  all  other  powers,  the  power  of  human  life,  so 
strong  in  the  individual,  how  much  stronger  in  the 
Church  of  Christ.  How  full  of  meaning,  when  we 
understand  this,  is  not  the  declaration  of  absolution 
at  the  opening  of  our  Morning  Prayer,  setting  forth 
as  the  first  act  of  our  worship  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
to  bring  which  is  the  proper  function  of  the  Church.' 

The  Church  is  the  purveyor  of  the  divine  blessing. 
Its  work  is  not  done  by  magic  processes;  that  is  a 
perversion  of  Christianity.  God's  blessing  is  trans- 
mitted through  the  life  of  the  Church,  both  the 
individual  life  of  its  members  and  the  life  of  the 
whole  body.     There  is  a  real  life  of  the  Church  dis- 

'  U  was  perhaps  the  worst  fault  of  Puritanism  that  it  lost  sight  of 
the  truo  function  of  the  Church.  The  body,  ordained  by  Christ  for 
the  execution  of  his  mission,  became  a  voluntary  association  of  like- 
minded  people. 


116  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

tinct  from  the  life  of  its  members.  It  makes  itself 
especially  felt  in  the  worship  of  the  Church.  The 
worship  of  the  Church  is  the  act  of  the  whole  body, 
not  of  the  individual. 

There  are  two  ideas  of  worship.  According  to 
one  I  go  to  Church  for  what  I  can  get  out  of  Church  ; 
in  every  act  of  the  public  function  I  stand  as  an  in- 
dividual before  God ;  I  pray  for  myself,  I  praise  for 
myself;  I  listen  to  the  Bible  and  to  the  preaching 
for  myself.  This  is  the  very  negation  of  the  Church's 
function  and  the  ignoring  of  the  true  idea  of  Christ- 
ian worship.  This  idea  is  nothing  if  not  the  ex- 
pression of  fellowship.  The  worship  is  common 
worship ;  it  is  pervaded  above  all  with  the  feeling  of 
sympathy  and  one  common  aim ;  its  essential  char- 
acter is  not  petition  or  instruction,  but  praise. 
Man's  true  worship  of  God  is  the  praise  of  God. 

The  common  worship  is  the  highest  act  of  the 
Christian  life.  It  is  that  act  which  is  most  instinct 
with  vitality  and  energy.  We  have  all  felt  the 
great  power  there  is  in  common  worship,  when  that 
worship  is  genuine.  There  is  no  spiritual  force 
comparable  to  that  of  true  united  worship,  voices 
raised  in  harmony  of  tone  and  harmony  of  spirit  in 
the  praise  of  God.  It  throws  out  an  irresistible 
spell.  It  is  the  most  powerful  means  at  the  dis- 
posal of  the  Church  for  the  spread  of  the  kingdom 
of  God.  There  is  a  convincing  force  in  common 
worship,  bringing  home  the  truths  of  God's  father- 
hood and  man's  brotherhood,  which  no  logic  can 
hope  to  equal.      Selfishness  cannot  stand  against  it. 


THE    ETERNAL   LIFE.  117 

When  the  Church  is  engaged  in  the  act  of  true  wor- 
ship, she  is  the  Church  of  Christ  indeed. 

But,  alas !  is  this  true  worship  the  worship  of  the 
Church  which  has  inscribed  upon  her  book  of  wor- 
ship '*  Common  Prayer"  ?  Or  must  she  acknow- 
ledge that  she  has  not  been  faithful  to  her  highest 
function?  Is  it  not  time  that  we  should  set  ourselves 
in  all  seriousness  to  answer  this  question  :  ]Vkat  is 
CJiristian  worsJiip  /  Are  we  hopelessly  blind  to  the 
fact  that  the  act  of  praise  performed  by  a  set  of  ap- 
pointed functionaries  is  in  no  sense  of  the  word  the 
worship  of  the  congregation?  The  performance  of 
the  concert  hall  never  can  be  the  praise  of  the 
Church.  Before  Almighty  God  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  vicarious  worship.  An  abuse,  which  has 
not  its  equal  in  the  life  of  the  Church,  which  will 
more  and  more  destroy  the  vital  influence  of  the 
Church  in  America,  has  been  allowed  to  take 
root  and  grow.  Our  congregations  have  almost 
ceased  to  worship,  and  rest  in  the  comfortable  be- 
lief that  they  do  their  duty  to  God  if  they  have 
delegated  that  most  essential  function  of  the  Christ- 
ian to  a  set  of  appointed  singers.  Even  that  most 
solemn  act  of  Christian  worship,  the  profession  of 
our  common  faith,  is  turned  into  a  show-perform- 
ance, at  which  the  congregation  takes  the  part  of  an 
audience  at  the  opera — a  very  satire  upon  our  *'  com- 
mon prayer."  ' 

'  There  is  no  part  of  our  Church  life  to-day  which  so  cries  out  for 
reform  as  the  public  worship.  On  the  title-page  of  our  prayer-book 
stand  the  words,  "  Common  Prayer."     At  the  opening  of  our  morn- 


118  THE   KINGDOM   OF    GOD. 

We  have  spent  much  of  our  time  and  energy  in 
trying  to  find  out  what  was  the  original  constitution 
of  the  Church.  Would  it  not  be  well  if  we  now 
turned  our  thoughts  to  the  great  living  reality,  the 
Church  in  our  own  time,  and  endeavoured  to  under- 
stand what  is  its  God-ordained  use,  what  is  the 
power  entrusted  to  it,  how  does  that  power  manifest 
itself,  and  what  stands  in  the  way  of  its  operation  ? 
It  is  an  inspiring  thought  that  this  organisation  is 
the  instrument  chosen  of  God  for  the  redemption  of 
mankind,  and  there  is  a  glorious  field  for  the 
Church's  work.  But  that  work  will  be  adequately 
done  only  when  the  selfishness  of  sectarian  individ- 

ing  service  is  this  appeal :  "  O  come,  let  us  sing  unto  the  Lord  :  let 
us  heartily  rejoice  in  the  strength  of  our  salvation.  .  .  .  O  come, 
let  us  worship  and  fall  down.  .  .  .  O  worship  the  Lord  in  the 
beauty  of  holiness."  What,  measured  by  the  standard  of  these  ex- 
pressions, shall  we  say  of  the  worship  as  it  is  generally  performed  in 
our  churches  ?  Either  a  set  of  hired  singers  performs  an  elaborate 
musical  programme  for  the  entertainment  of  a  very  few  musical  people, 
and  the  church  is  degraded  to  the  level  of  a  music  hall  ;  or  the  con- 
gregation stands  listlessly  waiting  for  the  end  of  a  dreary  chant  in 
which  it  takes  not  the  slightest  part.  Let  who  will  deceive  himself 
with  the  absurdity  of  a  "  worship  of  the  heart  "  ;  true  worship  has 
well-nigh  gone  out  of  the  Church,  to  the  infinite  loss  of  her  vital 
power.  For — and  I  challenge  anyone  to  deny  this — the  recital  of 
music  by  a  choir  is  not  Christian  worship.  The  word  "  Common 
Prayer"  is  becoming  a  misnomer.  A  more  appropriate  title  for  our 
service  book  would  be,  "  The  I?ook  of  Prayers,  together  with  a 
libretto  of  the  customary  musical  recitals."  The  apathy  of  the 
Church  in  this  matter,  the  almost  entire  neglect  of  the  latent  powers 
of  worship  in  our  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  is  in  these  days  of 
humanitarian  enthusiasm  a  most  extraordinary  phenomenon.  When 
will  the  time  come  that  we  shall  learn  the  difference  between  a 
church  and  a  concert  hall  ? 


THE    ETERXAL  *LIFE.  119 

ualism,  such  as  turns  common  worship  into  a  parody, 
gives  way  to  a  larger  feeling  of  a  common  life  and 
common  aspirations. 

At  no  period  has  the  Church  failed  in  the  per- 
formance, in  some  degree,  of  her  divinely  appointed 
task,  or  else  society  would  long  ago  have  crumbled. 
Yet  it  seems,  as  we  look  around  us  to-day,  as  if  the 
Christian  Church  had  not  yet  awakened  to  the  full 
consciousness  that  her  supreme  mission,  as  the 
Church  militant,  is  to  build  up  virile,  brave,  hope- 
ful character,  and  so  doing  to  lay  the  foundations  for 
that  society  which  shall  ever  advance  towards  the 
consummation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  upon  earth. 
Let  the  Church  to-day  reflect  that  the  splendid  prac- 
tical work  which  she  is  doing  will  prove  unsubstan- 
tial in  proportion  as  she  fails  of  the  appointed 
function  of  the  Church :  to  show  to  the  world  what 
it  is  to  be  forgiven,  to  live  near  God,  to  hold  up  to 
the  world  the  ideal  of  the  eternal  life.  If  to-day  we 
have  to  acknowledge  a  deflection  from  that  ideal,  I 
believe  the  chief  cause  is  in  the  degeneracy  of  our 
worship. 

In  concluding  this  part  of  our  enquiry,  let  us  turn 
to  the  writings  of  those  who  are  the  true  Christian 
prophets  and  seers  of  our  day,  the  great  modern 
poets:  a  Tennyson,  a  Browning,  a  Wordsworth. 
What  is  the  secret  of  that  power  which  makes  us  so 
often  sit  at  their  feet  ?  Is  it  not  that  they  have 
preached  a  message  which,  bringing  in  a  larger  hope 
and  a  stronger  faith,  sustains  us  and  gives  us  cour- 


120  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

age  ?  And  that  message,  whence  did  they  get  it  ? 
Can  there  be  a  doubt  ? 

When  at  the  close  of  the  first  book  of  the  "  Ex- 
cursion "  we  read  how  the  wanderer's  meditations 
at  the  deserted  cottage  taught  him, 

"  That  what  we  feel  of  sorrow  and  despair 
From  ruin  and  from  change,  and  all  the  grief 
That  passing  shows  of  Being  leave  behind, 
Appeared  an  idle  dream,  that  could  maintain 
Nowhere,  dominion  o'er  the  enlightened  spirit 
Whose  meditative  sympathies  repose 
Upon  the  breast  of  Faith," 

we  read  in  language  as  beautiful  as  any  that  English 
literature  contains  the  expression  of  a  faith  which 
was  drawn  from  Christ. 

But  Browning,  too.     Those  inspiring  lines : 

"  Therefore  to  whom  turn  I  but  to  Thee,  the  ineffable  Name, 
Builder  and  maker.  Thou,  of  houses  not  made  with  hands  ! 
What,  have  fear  of  change  from  Thee  who  art  ever  the  same  ? 

Doubt  that  Thy  power  can  fill  the  heart  that  Thy  power  expands  ? 
There  shall  never  be  one  lost  good  !     What  was,   shall  live  as 
before  ; 
The  evil  is  null,  is  nought,  is  silence  implying  sound  ; 
What  was  good,  shall  be  good,  with,  for  evil,  so  much  good  more  : 
On  the  earth  the  broken  arks  ;  in  the  heaven,  a  perfect  round." 

— they  carry  the  message  of  faith,  of  courage,  of 
hopefulness.  Could  those  Avords  ever  have  been 
penned  without  Christianity  ?  They  go  right  to  the 
heart  of  the  Christian  religion.  Whatever  Brown- 
ing's intellectual  belief  was,  he  learned  that  lesson 
from  Christ. 

"  Doubt  that  Thy  power  can  fill  the  heart  that 


THE   ETERNAL   LIFE.  121 

Thy  power  expands  ?  "  Contrast  that  with  PHny : 
"  His  nature  is  a  He, — uniting  the  greatest  poverty 
with  the  greatest  pride." 

Take  even  the  poetry  of  an  agnostic  like  Matthew 
Arnold.  With  a  music  of  its  own,  it  often  breathes 
the  spirit  of  the  genuine  seer.  However  little  con- 
scious he  was  of  it,  that  spirit  came  to  him  from  no 
other  source  than  Christianity.  Could  "  Rugby 
Chapel  "  or  "  Self-Dependence  "  ever  have  been 
written  in  an  atmosphere  of  pure  agnosticism  ? ' 

We  do  not  like  to  acknowledge  it,  but  we  turn 
for  comfort  and  strength  far  more  to  the  poets  than 
we  do  to  more  professedly  Christian  writings.  But 
our  instincts  are  true,  because  we  recognise  in  their 
message  more  than  in  many  a  volume  of  sermons 
the  ring  of  genuine  Christian  faith.  And  the  reason 
of  this  is  that  the  poet,  with  that  intuition  which  is 
his  gift,  goes  straight  to  the  heart  of  Christianity, 
and  the  simplicity  of  his  message  comes  to  us  with 
an  irresistible  appeal.     The  theologian  often  for  the 

^  How  great  is  the  debt  which  American  Christianity  owes  to  our 
American  poets  :  a  Bryant,  a  Whittier,  a  Longfellow,  a  Lowell. 
But  where  are  the  hands  that  shall  grasp  the  torch  from  these  giants 
and  pass  the  light  of  truth  and  hope  to  the  coming  generations  ?  I 
was  on  the  point  of  adding  Emerson's  name  to  the  list.  But,  with  all 
his  exquisite  refinement  of  thought,  is  not  the  strong  note  of  the 
prophet  quite  wanting  in  him  ?  No  wonder  that  his  appreciation  of 
Christianity  was  small.     Compare  his  lines  in  "  Song  of  Nature"  ; 

"  One  in  a  Judean  manger, 
And  one  by  Avon  stream, 
One  over  against  the  mouths  of  Nile, 
And  one  in  the  Academe." 


122  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

very  trees  sees  not  the  forest ;  he  labours  to  set  be- 
fore us  a  Christianity  which  is  too  often  artificial, 
which  fails  to  satisfy  the  deep  yearning  of  the  heart 
for  the  heavenly  food. 

But  we  are  learning  a  truer  theology.  The  old 
forms  of  interpretation,  which  in  their  day  were  the 
embodiment  of  new  and  valuable  truth,  are  giving 
way  before  a  larger  knowledge.  A  deeper  insight 
and  a  keener  sympathy  for  the  needs  of  man  is 
opening  before  our  eyes  larger  vistas  of  truth. 

In  this  Christian  receptiveness  we  recognise  the 
vitality  of  the  Christian  religion.  The  truth  "  once 
delivered  to  the  saints  "  remains  ever  the  same,  an 
absolute  constant  ideal.  But  the  Christian's  the- 
ology, his  understanding  and  appreciation  of  that 
truth,  is  ever  growing  and  we  trust  will  never  cease 
to  grow. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE    IDEA   OF   GOD. 

All  theological  systems  consistently  carried  out 
centre  in  the  idea  of  God.  Underlying  every  re- 
ligious problem  we  find  in  the  last  analysis  this 
question :  How  do  we  conceive  of  God  ?  The 
theological  enquirer,  when  he  begins  his  investiga- 
tion, necessarily  starts  with  some  conception  of  God. 
This  will  be  at  first  more  or  less  dim  and  undeter- 
mined. It  is  the  result  of  various  forces  that  have 
acted  upon  him  :  training,  observation  of  life,  the 
Bible.  As  he  proceeds  to  define  and  harmonise  the 
various  elements,  the  idea  of  God  becomes  more  and 
more  clarified,  until  finally  the  system  comes  to  rest  in 
a  representation  of  God  that  will  satisfy  all  the  ele- 
ments of  the  problem  in  his  own  mind.  You  know 
that  the  water  in  the  stream  comes  from  high  up  in 
the  hills.  Far  down  its  course  you  judge  from  the 
colour  and  the  taste  somewhat  of  the  nature  of  the 
soil  from  which  it  springs.  But  you  are  not  satis- 
fied until  you  have  traced  it  back  to  its  source  and 
stand  at  last  where  it  gushes  out  of  the  ground. 
So,  all  the  while  we  were  studying  the  working  of 
those  spiritual  powers  under  whose  influence  we 
stand,  we  were  conscious  that  they  proceeded  frorn 

123 


124  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

a  source  high  above  us.  Now  we  must  trace  the 
stream  to  that  source  and  press  as  near  as  possible 
into  the  presence  of  the  Fountain-head  of  all  power. 

It  is  the  fault  of  a  great  deal  of  our  theology 
that  it  starts  with  those  conceptions  of  God  which 
are  supposed  to  be  natural  to  man.  It  therefore 
takes  as  the  foundation  of  its  idea,  not  the  concep- 
tions of  an  enlightened  Christian  sense,  but  those 
general  notions  common  to  all  humanity.  It  seeks 
its  knowledge  of  the  Deity  as  far  as  possible  from 
Christianity,  among  the  sages  of  ancient  Greece  or 
in  the  intuitive  notions  of  uncivilised  tribes.  Hence 
those  terms  which  are  so  much  heard :  the  "  infinite 
being,"  the"  absolute,"  the  "  great  first  cause." 
The  full  conception  of  God  is  therefore  made  up  of 
two  strata,  the  one  pagan,  the  other  Christian.  The 
one  is  a  conglomerate  of  metaphysical  conceptions, 
the  other  is  an  appendix  of  Christian  ideas. 

This  incongruous  mixture  of  conceptions  is  due  to 
the  hold  which  Greek  philosophy  had  upon  the  great 
minds  of  the  Church  almost  from  the  beginning. 
The  early  Greek  theology  was  saturated  with  meta- 
physical elements  which  prevented  the  Christian 
revelation  from  maintaining  the  constitutive  import- 
ance that  properly  belongs  to  it  in  a  consistent 
Christian  system.  We  learn  to  know  God  truly  only 
through  the  Christian  revelation.  Instead  of  start- 
ing with  a  general  idea  of  God  and  rising  from  that 
to  the  particular  Christian  conception,  we  begin  and 
end  with  the  Christian  God,  we  know  no  other  God 
than  the  God  of  Christ. 


THE   IDEA    OF   GO]).  125 

It  is  at  this  point  particularly  that  we  apply  the 
principle  which  differentiates  religious  from  theoreti- 
cal knowledge,  as  it  was  set  forth  in  the  introductory 
chapter.  The  organ  of  religious  knowledge  is  not 
the  pure  intellect.  We  judge  religious  questions 
not  by  a  pure  mental  judgment,  but  by  the  value  of 
those  feelings  that  accompany  the  mental  act.  We 
cannot  know  God  as  he  is  in  himself,  but  we  can 
know  him  for  what  he  is  to  us,  by  the  value  which 
he  has  for  us.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  disinter- 
ested knowledge  of  God.  This  was  the  fatal  mis- 
conception which  the  early  theologians  inherited 
from  the  Greek  philosophy.  My  ideas  of  God  are 
rightly  governed  by  the  interests  of  my  spiritual  life, 
by  the  need  which  I  have  of  a  God. 

What  is  that  need  ?  What  purpose  is  the  concep- 
tion of  God  intended  to  serve  ?  There  must  be  a 
practical  reason  why  we  believe  in  God,  why  we 
cannot  be  without  God.  That  reason  will  be  the 
touchstone  of  all  our  ideas  about  God,  will  govern 
and  regulate  all  our  thought  of  God. 

To  the  philosopher  and  the  scientist  it  may  be  a 
curious  question,  what  he  is  to  think  of  the  origin 
of  this  material  world.  If  theology  is  prompted  by 
mere  curiosity,  it  is  not  conscious  of  its  true  func- 
tion. Its  interest  is  wholly  different.  It  starts  from 
man's  nature  and  finds  that  it  is  incomplete  with- 
out God.  The  conditions  of  life  demand  a  God.  It 
is  a  practical  matter  to  the  theologian.  Man  needs 
God  not  to  explain  life — for  the  explanation  of  life  is  a 
secondary  interest  to  him — but  to  make  life  possible. 


126  THE    KINGDOM    OF   (401). 

Man  needs  God  to  make  life  possible  for  two  rea- 
sons. First  is  the  ethical  reason.  The  terms  ex- 
pressive of  moral  value,  duty,  responsibility,  justice, 
etc.,  have  no  meaning  unless  there  is  something 
behind  them.  The  idea  of  God  must  be  such  that 
it  renders  these  terms  intelligible,  it  must  give  value 
to  ethical  quantities.  This  is  the  first  test  of  our 
idea  of  God.  The  second  test  is  distinctively  re- 
ligious. It  concerns  man's  natural  condition  of 
dependence.  Man  finds  himself  placed  in  a  posi- 
tion of  apparently  hopeless  contradiction.  He  is  a 
part  of  nature,  subject  like  all  other  material  things, 
to  the  unchangeable  laws  of  the  universe.  Lookincr 
at  himself  from  this  point  of  view,  he  seems  a  mere 
plaything  in  the  hands  of  overwhelming  forces, 
utterly  helpless.  On  the  other  hand,  he  cannot 
escape  the  consciousness  of  a  something  within  him 
which  raises  him  above  the  world.  He  has  an  in- 
born sense  of  the  dignity  of  his  human  nature,  a 
conviction  that  his  life  represents  a  superior  value. 
There  is  within  him  a  feeling  of  superiority,  the 
stamp  of  a  preference  which  marks  him  as  heir  to  a 
destiny  transcending  nature.  This  contradiction 
in  the  life  of  man  is  insoluble  without  God.  We 
need  God  to  read  the  riddle  of  our  life,  to  secure 
our  place  in  the  world. 

This  is  the  twofold  test  which  is  to  be  the  criterion 
of  all  our  thoughts  about  God.  The  God  we  are  to 
believe  in  must  assure  us  that  in  the  distinction  Vv^e 
make  between  right  and  wrong,  as  well  as  in  the 
\'alue  which  we  put  upon  our  own  life,  we  shall  not 


THE    IDEA    OF    GOD.  127 

in  the  end  be  brought  to  confusion.  Whatever  con- 
ception we  form  of  God,  it  must  perform  for  us  this 
double  service.  The  question  now  is  :  Whence  shall 
we  derive  the  knowledge  of  God  which  will  satisfy 
these  two  conditions  ? 

It  was  stated  above  that  the  great  fault  of  the  tra- 
ditional theology  was  that  it  derived  its  fundamental 
conceptions  of  God  from  reason,  or  so-called  natural 
theology.  The  force  of  this  criticism  will  be  seen, 
if  we  apply  to  the  God  of  natural  theology  the  tests 
which  have  been  set  forth.  We  shall  therefore  pro- 
ceed to  the  examination  of  the  various  arguments 
for  the  existence  of  God. 

First  are  the  three  metaphysical  arguments :  the 
cosmological,  teleological,  and  ontological.  The  cos- 
mological  argument  reasons  from  the  conditioned  to 
the  unconditioned.  All  that  we  know  in  the  ma- 
terial word  is  conditioned.  The  conditioned  postu- 
lates a  series  of  conditions  until  the  unconditioned 
is  reached.  Therefore  behind  the  conditioned  uni- 
verse we  must  assume  an  unconditioned  being — 
God.  The  teleological  argument  reasons  from 
design  to  a  designer.  All  parts  of  the  world  give 
evidence  of  design.  We  are  forced  to  assume  an 
almighty  Designer — God.  This  argument  is  sup- 
posed to  have  lost  its  force  by  the  discovery  of  the 
principle  of  evolution.  In  fact,  however,  it  needs 
only  to  be  remodelled  and  it  retains  whatever  force 
belonged  to  it.  The  ontological  argument  deals 
with  pure  concepts  of  the  mind.  The  conception 
of   the    highest   possible    being  which  the  mind   is 


128  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

capable  of  forming  carries  with  it  the  existence  of 
that  being.  If  he  did  not  exist  he  would  be  want- 
ing in  perfection.     Therefore  God  exists.  . 

These  are  the  time-honoured  arguments  for  the 
existence  of  a  supreme  being.  What  sort  of  a  God 
do  they  set  up  ?  Here  is  the  point  where  grave 
mistakes  are  made.  Conclusions  are  anticipated  to 
which  we  have  no  right.  A  bare  philosophical  ab- 
straction is  surreptitiously  clothed  with  the  attri- 
butes of  the  being  whom  we  call  God.  Whereas  all 
we  have  gained  is  a  vague  notion  of  an  **  uncondi- 
tioned," an  "  absolute,"  a  *'  self-existent  being," 
an  "  original  intelligence  " — an  utterly  barren  idea. 

The  metaphysical  arguments  are  indeed  nothing 
more  than  an  analysis  of  that  concept  of  the  mind 
in  which  we  represent  God  to  ourselves.  It  is  the 
consciousness  of  a  something  behind  phenomena. 
All  therefore  that  these  terms  do  for  us  is  to  suggest 
that  there  is  somewhere  an  adequate  solution  for 
this  riddle  of  a  world,  the  source  of  whose  being  and 
the  manner  of  whose  existence  are  absolutely  beyond 
the  reach  of  our  mental  powers.  But  that  we  know 
without  the  subtlety  of  metaphysical  reasoning. 

Kant  gave  to  the  metaphysical  conception  of  God 
a  more  practical  meaning.  Our  mental  processes 
postulate  the  idea  of  God  as  the  **  ideal  of  the  pure 
reason."  The  metaphysical  God  is  the  logical  con- 
dition of  all  reasoning,  the  necessary  assumption  of 
all  thought.  Our  reason  demands  a  God.  That 
does  not  prove  the  existence  of  God.  But  man  is 
.obliged  by  the  necessity  of  his  mental  faculties  to 


THE   IDEA   OF    GOD.  129 

conceive  of  a  something  behind  reason  which  gives 
reaHty  to  reason ;  he  must  reason  as  if  there  were  a 
God. 

Let  us  now  apply  to  the  metaphysical  conception 
of  God  the  tests  which  we  have  adopted  as  necessary 
for  our  judgment  upon  any  conception  of  God,  its 
ethical  and  spiritual  value.  Measured  by  this  two- 
fold test,  the  metaphysical  conception  of  God,  either 
in  the  traditional  or  the  Kantian  form,  is  worth- 
less. The  metaphysical  and  the  religious  idea  of 
God  are  widely  different.  The  metaphysical  God 
has  no  ethical  value ;  it  affords  no  ground  for  moral 
distinctions.  Neither  has  it  spiritual  contents.  The 
very  suggestion  of  a  religious  trust  in  such  a  logical 
abstraction  is  preposterous.  The  metaphysical  God 
is  not  the  sort  of  God  we  want.  It  is  useless  to  us. 
It  is  a  God  in  whom  the  devils  believe,  although 
they  do  not  even  tremble  at  him — a  colourless  ab- 
straction of  the  mind. 

When  we  pass  from  the  metaphysical  to  the  moral 
argument,  we  are  carried  a  step  further.  This  argu- 
ment starts  from  the  existence  of  moral  sentiments; 
they  make  it  necessary  to  assume  a  fountain-head 
of  morality — God. 

We  are  familiar  with  that  view  which  makes  the 
moral  law  equally  with  everything  else  the  result  of 
evolution.  Doubtless  we  owe  to  the  distinguished 
scientists  who  have  treated  this  theme,  especially 
Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  a  great  clarification  of  our 
ideas  about  the  contents  of  many  of  our  moral  con- 


130  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

ceptions.  We  must  allow  that  in  their  substance 
many,  if  not  all  of  these,  are  the  results  of  exper- 
ience. This  is  true  of  parental  responsibility  for 
children,  the  rights  of  property,  the  sanctity  of  life. 
These  sentiments  have  grown  up  as  a  result  of  the 
exigencies  of  society,  through  a  course  of  evolution 
which  has  been  proceeding  for  untold  ages  under  the 
impulse  of  the  struggle  for  existence.  And  we  have 
not  yet  reached  the  goal  of  moral  evolution.  As  we 
go  forward  and  adapt  ourselves  more  completely  to 
the  conditions  of  progress,  we  evolve  new  moral 
sentiments.  Christianity  has  produced  many  such, 
and  I  shall  have  occasion  later  on  to  point  out  the 
direction  in  which  we  may  expect  higher  concep- 
tions of  ethical  obligation  to  be  evolved  in  the  future. 

But  that  does  not  touch  the  core  of  the  moral 
question.  Evolution  cannot  explain  the  cogency  of 
the  moral  imperative.  I  can  understand  how  the 
obligation  to  speak  the  truth  developed  as  the  result 
of  a  long  experience,  proving  that  truth  was  neces- 
sary for  the  existence  of  society.  But  your  argu- 
ment does  not  prove  to  me  why  the  voice  of 
conscience  commands  me  individually,  me  person- 
ally, me  specifically,  to  speak  nothing  but  the  truth. 

It  is  not  infrequently  assumed,  with  an  extraordi- 
nary superficiality  of  observation,  that  the  traditional 
supernatural  sanctions  for  moral  conduct,  while  well 
enough  in  their  day,  are  no  longer  needed.  They 
have  served  their  purpose,  and,  like  the  scaffolding 
which  held  the  stones  of  the  arch  while  it  was  build- 
ing, now  that  it  is  finished,  mav  be  thrown  awav. 


THE    IDEA   OF    GOD.  131 

The  very  reverse  is  true.  The  sanctions  of  an 
ethical  system  are  more  needed  to-day  than  ever. 
I  have  said,  in  a  preceding  chapter,  that  we  of  our 
day  differ  in  nothing  so  much  from  the  men  of  past 
centuries  as  in  our  greater  self-consciousness.  In  the 
earlier  ages  men  used  to  act  without  thinking.  They 
did  not  care  much  about  laws  and  sanctions.  Habit 
governed.  Once  started,  they  moved  unthinkingly 
along  the  same  track.  It  did  not  make  much  differ- 
ence to  them  whether  there  was  any  reason  for  acting 
in  one  particular  way  rather  than  in  another.  They 
were  used  to  it ;  that  was  all.  Not  so  now.  We 
stop  and  look  back  and  ask,  Are  we  on  the  right 
track  ?  We  want  to  have  a  reason  for  everything 
that  we  do,  and  if  no  adequate  reason  can  be  given 
we  will  stop  doing  that  particular  thing.  So,  among 
other  things,  a  reason  is  demanded  for  the  cogency 
of  the  moral  law.  It  has  been  attempted  to  give 
such.  We  may  safely  say  that  at  this  point  the  his- 
torical method  completely  breaks  down.  A  little 
reflection  must  convince  the  candid  student  how 
utterly  inadequate  experience  is  to  furnish  sanctions 
for  right  conduct.  If  I  see  a  gold  piece  belonging 
to  another  man  and  am  absolutely  certain  that  I  can 
take  it  without  being  detected,  no  amount  of  argu- 
mentation upon  the  naturalistic  hypothesis  will  avail 
to  convince  me  that  I  ought  not  to  take  it.  What 
do  I  care  for  the  good  of  society  ?  What  are  coining 
generations  to  me  ?  I  want  my  own  good.  Doing 
right  is  something  more  than  a  habit,  and  there  is  a 
reason    other    than   the    good   of  "  society  "   or  of 


132  THE   KINGDOM   OF    GOD. 

humanity."  Underlying  the  vast  complexus  of 
human  institutions,  habits,  and  motives,  which  we 
call  modern  civilisation,  there  is  the  sense  of  the 
eternal  validity  of  truth,  apart  from  and  beyond  all 
experience.  If  this  did  not  exist,  civilisation  would 
collapse  in  a  day.' 

In  the  Data  of  Ethics  there  is  a  curious  passage 
which  shows  that  the  author  himself  felt  the  need  of 
a  higher  sanction  than  that  which  mere  experience 
gives  to  good  conduct.  We  read,  at  the  end  of 
Chapter  IX.  :  "  The  intuitions  corresponding  to 
these  (moral)  sentiments,  have,  in  virtue  of  their 
origin,  a  general  authority  to  be  reverently  recog- 
nised." In  the  use  of  language  the  object  of 
reverence  is  conceived  as  above  us.  Mr.  Spencer 
cannot  quite  get  away  from  the  idea  that  moral  sanc- 
tions must,  after  all,  come  from  a  sphere  above 
experience. 

There  is  indeed  something  exquisitely  self-contra- 
dictory in  constructing  a  system  of  ethics,  while 
claiming  that  it  is  all  "  evolved."  How  much 
deeper  are  the  investigations  into  the  springs  of 
morality   made  by  Immanuel   Kant  !     He  saw  the 

'  I  think  there  is  a  pretty  general  agreement  that  we  have  gone  be- 
yond the  position  of  Mr.  Spencer.  One  cannot  take  up  one  of  the 
treatises  written  by  men  of  his  school,  without  being  strongly  im- 
pressed by  two  things  :  first,  what  a  wonderful  clue  to  the  under- 
standing of  the  world  this  theory  of  evolution  is  ;  secondly,  how 
utterly  it  breaks  down  when  it  is  used  as  a  key  to  the  understanding  of 
man's  spiritual  and  moral  nature,  to  solve  the  highest  problems  of 
humanity.  There  is  an  x  whose  mystery  the  keenest  historical 
analysis  fails  to  touch. 


THE    IDEA    OF    (iOD.        '  188 

Impossibility  of  a  morality  without  God.  Says 
Kant:  "  Such  a  ruler  (God),  together  with  life  in 
such  a  world,  which  we  must  consider  as  future, 
reason  compels  us  to  admit,  unless  all  moral  laws  are 
to  be  considered  as  idle  dreams,  because,  without 
that  supposition,  the  necessary  consequences,  which 
the  same  reason  connects  with  these  laws,  would 
be  absent."  {Pure  Reason,  Miiller's  translation,  p. 
696).  Kant's  argument  is  based  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  ethical  action  is  possible  only  through  the 
belief  in  the  ultimate  coincidence  of  happiness  and 
goodness.  And  this  is  impossible  without  God. 
The  ethical  law  in  man  makes  it  necessary  to  postu- 
late God.  This  does  not  establish  the  existence  of 
God.  (3nly  we  must  tJiink  God.  Kant  makes  the 
well-known  distinction  between  practical  and  theo- 
retical necessity.  Practically,  you  act  as  if  there 
were  a  God.  Theoretically,  you  have  no  right  to 
say  there  is  a  God. 

In  the  preface  to  his  Types  of  Ethical  Theory,  Mr. 
James  Martineau  illustrates  by  his  own  experience 
the  cogency  of  the  ethical  sentiments.  He  is  speak- 
ing of  the  motives  which  induced  him  to  abandon 
the  determinist  position:  "  It  was  the  irresistible 
pleading  of  the  moral  consciousness  which  first  drove 
me  to  rebel  against  the  limits  of  the  merely  scientific 
conception.  .  .  .  The  secret  misgivings  which 
I  had  always  felt  at  either  discarding  or  perverting 
the  terms  which  constitute  the  vocabulary  of  char- 
acter,— '  responsibility,'  '  guilt,'  '  merit,'  '  duty,' — 
came  to  a  head,  and  insisted  upon  speaking  out  and 


134  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

being  heard ;  and  to  their  reiterated  question,  *  Is 
there  then  no  ought  to  be  other  than  what  is  ?  '  I 
found  the  negative  answer  of  Diderot  intolerable, 
and  all  other  answers  impossible. "  The  force  of  the 
moral  argument  is  here  most  admirably  expressed. 
"  The  irresistible  pleading  of  the  moral  conscious- 
ness "  is  the  stumbling-block  to  all  naturalistic 
theories  of  morality. 

Kant  maintained  that  God  must  be  postulated  to 
make  thought  possible;  but  that  does  not  establish 
the  existence  of  God.  The  same  condition  holds 
for  conduct.  But  here  we  must  go  a  step  further.  It 
makes  no  difference  to  the  mental  processes  whether 
there  really  is  a  God  or  not.  The  man  who  believes 
in  God  and  the  man  who  does  not,  follow  the  same 
rules  of  thought.  Not  so  in  action.  It  will  ulti- 
mately make  a  very  great  difference  in  conduct 
whether  man  believes  in  God  or  not.  The  practical 
issues  of  life  force  us  to  a  decision.  We  are  driven 
by  the  imperative  demands  of  our  situation  to  en- 
quire why  right  is  right  and  wrong  is  wTong.  "  The 
irresistible  pleading  of  the  moral  consciousness  " 
brings  home  the  question  which  must  be  answered : 
Can  we  believe  in  an  eternal  God,  the  author  and 
source  of  moral  distinctions  ? 

I  ask  myself,  what  is  goodness,  justice,  truth  ? 
Are  they  mere  convenient  means  to  an  end,  and 
that  end  not  myself,  but  society,  mankind  ?  If  so, 
then  I  cannot  see  why  that  man  should  not  be  ac- 
counted wisest  who  makes  cunning  the  ruling  prin- 
ciple of  his  life,  the  cunning  which  circumvents  the 


THE    IDEA    OF    (xOD.  135 

arbitrary  laws  by  which  future  generations  are  made 
the  chief  beneficiaries  of  good  actions,  and  grasps  all 
it  can  for  itself.  The  moral  sense  revolts  from  such 
a  conclusion. 

We  question  whether  Kant  might  not  have  gone 
farther  than  he  did.  We  are  tempted  to  say  that 
the  moral  nature  of  man  not  only  demands  a  God, 
but  proves  a  God.  Kant,  however,  is  right.  We 
have  no  complete  proof.  If  we  argued  from  the 
moral  sense  to  God  and  then  accepted  him  be- 
cause he  satisfies  the  moral  sense,  we  should  be 
reasoning  in  a  circle.  We  shall  see  that  the  Kan- 
tian argument  leaves  the  completion  of  the  proof  to 
religion. 

In  themselves,  both  the  metaphysical  and  the 
moral  argument  are  incomplete.  But  they  are  not 
valueless.  They  reveal  to  us  the  need  man  has  of  a 
God.  The  intellectual  nature  is  incomprehensible 
without  God.  The  moral  faculty  is  a  delusion  if 
there  is  no  God.  And  to  these  we  can  add  a  third. 
The  spiritual  nature  of  man  craves  a  God.  The 
Psalmist's  cry:  "  My  soul  is  athirst  for  God,  yea, 
even  for  the  living  God  "  voices  the  universal  long- 
ing. It  is  the  cry  that  goes  up,  wherever  there 
is  a  human  heart  quick  with  the  sense  of  human 
wants, 

'*  From  the  spirits  on  earth  that  adore, 
From  the  souls  that  entreat  and  implore, 

In  the  fervour  and  passion  of  prayer  ; 
From  the  hearts  that  are  broken  with  losses 
And  weary  with  dragging  the  crosses 

Too  heavy  for  mortals  to  bear." 


136  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

Look  at  humanity  from  the  side  of  its  accomplish- 
ments, taking  human  nature  as  we  see  it  on  the  sur- 
face of  Hfe,  and  nothing  is  easier  than  to  sHde  into 
the  cynic's  vein:  man  is  so  ignoble,  so  deceitful,  so 
selfish.  But  penetrate  beneath  the  surface,  learn  to 
know  man  on  the  side  of  his  aspirations,  and  you  see 
him  tending  up,  groping,  reaching  out,  grasping  at 
the  higher,  striving  to  know  God, 

"  Like  plants  in  mines  which  never  saw  the  sun, 
But  dream  of  him,  and  guess  where  he  may  be, 
And  do  their  best  to  climb  and  get  to  him." 

We  shall  now  have  to  take  up  another  train  of 
thought,  which  has  not  perhaps  received  the  con- 
sideration it  may  claim.  Natural  theology  is  bound 
to  take  account  of  a  certain  class  of  evidence  in 
nature,  which  seems  to  point  in  a  direction  different 
from  that  in  which  we  look  for  a  solution  of  our 
problem.  I  mean  the  evidence  of  history  and 
biology.  It  properly  belongs  to  the  teleological 
argument.  We  conclude  from  universal  adaptation 
to  an  intelligent  author.  What  shall  we  conclude 
of  God  from  the  suffering  in  the  world  ?  When  the 
individual  suffers  or  sees  others,  apparently  inno- 
cent, suffer,  his  faith  in  the  goodness  of  God  receives 
a  shock.  What  shall  we  say  when  a  great  catas- 
trophe sweeps  away  hundreds  and  thousands  of  the 
innocent  as  well  as  the  guilty  ?  Modern  investiga- 
tion has  vastly  extended  our  knowledge  of  the  laws 
of  life ;  and  when  we  come  to  understand  that  the 
universal  law  of  life  is  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  and 


THE    IDEA   OF    GOD.  137 

that  in  obedience  to  this  law  there  is  a  never-ceasing 
battle  for  life,  that  in  this  battle  innocence  and  good 
intentions  are  of  no  account;  when  we  see  how  the 
great  machinery  of  life  is  arranged  with  a  single  eye 
to  the  welfare  and  the  advance  of  the  race  and 
there  is  not  the  least  care  of  the  individual ;  when,  in 
the  light  of  these  cruel  laws,  we  contemplate  the 
awful  spectacle  of  human  suffering  and  the  terrible 
prodigality  and  carelessness  of  life — the  conclusion 
seems  forced  upon  us  that  the  author  of  all  this  must 
be  a  being  devoid  of  moral  quality  and  indifferent 
to  human  welfare,  that  he  can  have  no  love  for  the 
individual.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  these  reflec- 
tions tell  heavily.  The  God  of  nature  is  not  the 
God  who  rewards  the  good  and  punishes  evildoers, 
or  one  whom  we  can  trust,  upon  whom  we  can  de- 
pend to  uphold  us  against  the  world. 

Natural  Theology  "  is  bound  to  take  not  only  a 
part  but  the  whole  of  the  teachings  of  nature,  and 
nature  includes  history  and  biology.  The  facts 
which  these  studies  furnish  may  well  startle  those 
who  have  looked  to  natural  theology  as  the  under- 
pinning of  Christianity.  If  nature  is  supposed  to 
have  revealed  God,  we  can  hardly  help  recoiling  from 
the  spirit  we  have  raised.  We  need  another  God 
who  will  save  us  from  the  God  of  nature.' 

'  The  idea  of  the  education  of  the  human  race,  to  which  appeal  has 
been  so  frequently  made,  is  helpless  to  save  us  from  the  dilemma  in 
which  the  apparently  remorseless  cruelty  of  nature's  God  places  us. 
We  are  asked  to  derive  comfort  from  the  reflection  that  the  tendency 
of  things  is  towards  a  millennial  perfection  of  human  nature  and 
society.     Mankind  is  conceived  as  a  sort  of  pyramid,  the  pinnacle  of 


188  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

There  is  one  exception  to  this  forbidding  teaching 
of  nature ;  one  word  which  she  speaks  gives  us  a 
hope  of  something  better.  It  is  only  a  delicate 
suggestion,  but  to  those  who  are  sensitive  to  the 
subtle  intimations  which  God  gives  of  himself,  it  is 
sufificient.     This  is  the  existence  of  beauty. 

In  studying  the  history  of  man  upon  earth,  we 
find  that  one  law  reigns  supreme:  the  law  of  ad- 
aptation. Everything  has  its  use,  every  faculty  in 
man  serves  its  purpose  in  adding  to  his  advantages 
in  the  inexorable  struggle  for  existence.  At  first  it 
was  a  question  of  physical  powers ;  the  battle  was  to 
the  swift  and  the  strong.  Then  there  came  a  time 
when  intellectual  pre-eminence  began  to  tell,  and 
the  powers  of  the  mind  have  since  been  decisive 
factors  in  the  absorbing  struggle.  Every  faculty 
was  given  man  for  the  one  purpose.  Even  the  high- 
est of  them,  the  power  of  sympathy,  takes  its  place 
in  the  series  of  means  with  which  man  is  furnished 
for  the  purpose  of  raising  himself.  It  represents  the 
law  which  steps  in  to  take  the  place  of  the  lower 
law  of  the  mere  struggle  for  existence,  when  man 
has  reached  an  advanced  stage  of  civilisation.      Only 

which  represents  the  perfected  society.  But  there  is  poor  comfort  in 
the  idea  of  a  God  who  can  condemn  incalculable  multitudes  of 
human  beings  to  suffering  and  death  just  that  they  may  be  the  step- 
ping-stones to  the  perfected  happiness  of  a  comparatively  insignificant 
number.  True,  history  points  unmistakably  to  the  pyramidal  idea 
of  human  society.  Religion  rests  upon  the  infinite  value  of  each 
individual  composing  the  lower  as  well  as  the  higher  strata  of  the 
pyramid.  Here  is  the  ultimate  antithesis  of  the  psychological  and 
the  historical  views.     Will  the  mind  of  man  ever  solve  it  ? 


THE    IDEA   OF   GOD.  139 

the  sense  of  beauty  has  no  function  to  perform  in 
the  struggle  for  existence.  It  is  an  end  in  itself. 
Upon  the  utilitarian  theory  we  ask  in  vain  for  an 
answer  to  the  question :  What  is  the  purpose  of  the 
appreciation  of  beauty  which  is  implanted  in  man?' 
Here,  then,  is  something  in  ourselves  which  points 
beyond  this  world,  which  has  the  mark  of  eternity. 
We  receive  at  last  an  intimation  of  what  man  was 
made  for.  For  this  love  of  beauty  in  us  is  not  left 
unsatisfied.  See  how  nature  treats  man  here.  She 
has  left  his  moral  needs  unfulfilled.  Not  so  his 
craving  for  the  beautiful.  She  has  moulded  things 
in  heaven  and  things  on  earth  in  forms  of  beauty, 
and  has  touched  the  sky  and  the  sea  and  the  land  with 
colours,  in  which  his  highest  faculty  finds  satisfac- 
tion. In  that  satisfaction  we  recognise  the  promise 
from  God  of  immortality  and  another  world.  It  is 
something  more  than  poetic  rapture,  it  is  the  expres- 
sion of  a  deep  truth,  when  Hawthorne  exclaims:^ 

'  I  believe  the  sense  of  beauty  is  supposed  to  have  served  as  a 
factor  in  "  natural  selection."  But  this  does  not  impair  the  truth  of 
what  is  said  in  the  text.  For  while  that  use  diminishes  with  advanc- 
ing civilisation,  the  sense  of  beauty  increases. 

The  train  of  thought  in  the  text  serves  to  show  the  folly  of  the 
exclusively  altruistic  view  of  life.  It  is  often  taken  for  granted  that 
activity  for  others  is  the  highest  possible  exercise  of  the  human  facul- 
ties ;  and  one  not  infrequently  hears  expressions  as  if  this  was  the 
only  life  worth  living.  Whoever  lives  in  that  spirit  is  making  but  a 
poor  preparation  for  heaven,  where  surely  there  will  be  no  more 
work  for  others  and  where,  if  we  have  not  done  so  here,  we  shall 
have  to  learn  to  employ  our  faculties  in  a  manner  which  will  bring 
its  own  immediate  satisfaction. 

*  Mosses  From  an  Old  Manse,  "  The  Old  Manse." 


140  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

"Our  Creator  would  never  have  made  such  lovely 
days  and  have  given  us  the  deep  hearts  to  enjoy 
them,  above  and  beyond  all  thought,  unless  we  were 
meant  to  be  immortal.  This  sunshine  is  the  golden 
pledge  thereof.  It  gleams  through  the  gates  of 
paradise  and  shows  us  glimpses  far  inward."  It  is 
the  lesson  which  Wordsworth  learned  from  nature,  as 
he  tells  us  in  his  description  of  the  Wanderer: 

" he  had  felt  the  power 


Of  Nature,  and  already  was  prepared 
By  his  intense  conceptions,  to  receive 
Deeply  the  lesson  deep  of  love  which  he 
Whom  Nature,  by  whatever  means,  has  taught 
To  feel  intensely,  cannot  but  receive." 

The  existence  of  beauty  in  nature  is  a  hint,  an 
intimation,  of  something  beyond.  Nature  furnishes 
no  proof  of  God,  and  natural  theology  would  be  a 
delusion  but  for  the  fact  that  it  makes  clear  the  sort 
of  God  man  needs.  Its  claim  to  furnish  the  founda- 
tion for  the  conception  of  what  God  is,  of  being  a 
factor  in  the  Christian  conception  of  God,  is  an  un- 
warranted assumption.  On  the  contrary,  if  we  are 
to  find  the  God  we  want,  it  must  be  one  with  attri- 
butes the  very  opposite  of  those  to  which  nature 
chiefly  gives  evidence. 

We  turn  therefore  to  the  only  other  source  of 
possible  knowledge:  Revelation.  From  natural  re- 
ligion we  advance  to  revealed  religion.  We  shall 
first  try  to  answer  the  question,  What  is  the  Chris- 
tian idea  of  God  ?  And  we  shall  then  measure  this 
idea  by  the  two  tests  which  we  have  adopted. 


THK    II) K A    OF    GOD.  141 

The  popular  Christian  conception  of  God  is  dual- 
istic.  Two  attributes  claim  equal  consideration. 
On  the  one  side  is  God's  justice  or  rii^hteousness. 
It  is  that  quality  which  is  generally  identified  with 
the  first  person  of  the  Trinity.  This  attribute  is 
fundamental.  It  expresses  what  is  central  in  the 
being  of  God.  Whatever  we  conceive  of  God's 
dealings  with  his  creatures  must  be  corrected  by  the 
criterion  of  his  primary  attribute  of  justice.  On  the 
other  side  is  God's  love.  This  is  generally  associated 
with  Christ.  It  is  an  effort  of  which  the  theological 
mind  has  not  usually  been  capable,  to  carry  back  this 
attribute  of  love  into  the  being  of  the  Father.  The 
dualism  shows  its  weakness  here  at  the  start.  What- 
ever may  be  held  in  strict  theory — we  shall  presently 
come  to  that — in  practice,  that  is,  in  the  theology  of 
everyday  use  and  in  the  minds  of  most  men,  justice 
is  associated  with  the  Father,  love  with  the  Son. 

The  biblical  authority  for  the  conception  of  God, 
which  makes  justice  his  fundamental  attribute,  is 
drawn  mainly  from  the  Old  Testament.  Ritschl 
has  attempted  to  show  that  the  word  "  righteous- 
ness," so  much  used  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament, 
denotes  that  characteristic  according  to  which  God 
acts  in  strict  conformity  to  his  purpose  of  upholding 
his  covenant  with  Israel  against  all  enemies,  and  is 
therefore  synonymous  with  love.'  Although  his 
exegesis  is  frequently  forced,  and  therefore  is  not 
convincing,  yet  he  has  adduced  sufficient  proof  to 
oblige  us  to  modify  our  ideas  of  the  use  of  this  term. 

'  Vol.  ii.  chap.  14. 


142  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

It  is  frequently  used  where  justice  would  not  be  an 
exact  equivalent,  but  where  it  conveys  nearly  the 
same  conception  as  love  or  mercy.  So  in  Psalm 
xxxi.  I  :  "In  thee,  O  Lord,  have  I  put  my  trust; 
let  me  never  be  put  to  confusion :  deliver  me 
in  thy  righteousness,''  and  Psalm  xxxvi.  lO:  "  O 
continue  forth  thy  loving-kindness  unto  them  that 
know  thee,  and  thy  righteoitsness  unto  them  that 
are  true  of  heart."  Exegesis  is  not,  however,  the 
decisive  factor  in  the  determination  of  the  Christian 
idea  of  God,  and  the  Old  Testament  is  not  the 
Christian's  primary  authority.  We  shall  presently 
see  that  a  more  exact  definition  of  revelation  is  re- 
quired for  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  God. 

The  idea  of  God  and  that  which  depends  upon  it, 
the  ethical  order  of  the  universe,  as  it  is  expressed  in 
the  commonly  accepted  view,  is  founded  upon  the 
analogy  of  the  state.  God  represents  the  authority 
of  the  state.  We  as  his  creatures  are  bound  to 
recognise  and  observe  his  laws;  this  is  the  condition 
of  eternal  life.  Representing  the  supreme  power  of 
the  state,  God  is  bound  not  only  to  reward  man  for 
his  obedience,  but  also  to  punish  him  for  his  diso- 
bedience. This  is  the  double  retribution,  by  reward 
and  punishment.  I  have  already  pointed  out  the 
danger  of  the  use  of  analogy  in  matters  of  religion. 
The  likeness  which  has  been  thoughtlessly  accepted, 
between  God  and  a  human  judge  or  lawgiver,  has 
so  fixed  the  conception  of  God  that  it  is  exceed- 
ingly difficult  to  prove  that  this  conception,  resting 
upon  an  imperfect  analogy,  is  inadequate. 


THE   IDEA   OF   GOD.  143 

It  is  this  analogy  which  gives  to  the  conception 
the  appearance  of  necessity.  We  have  been  so  ac- 
customed to  thinking  of  God  under  the  forms  of  a 
human  state,  as  the  supreme  power  in  a  human 
commonwealth,  that  we  have  come  to  regard  any 
other  way  of  conceiving  him  as  impossible.  The 
analogy  has  melted  into  the  thing  itself.  But  there 
is  another  analogy  which  Christ  used  far  more  fre- 
quently, that  of  fatherhood  ;  and  if  we  can  accustom 
ourselves  to  follow  his  thoughts,  abandoning  Old 
Testament  and  Greek  precedents,  we  shall  gain  quite 
a  different  conception  of  God. 

God's  justice  stands  for  a  certain  limitation  of  his 
power.  He  could  not  do  that  which  love  would 
prompt  him  to  do ;  there  is  a  bar  to  his  own  action. 
This  seems  on  the  face  of  it  to  impose  a  restriction 
upon  God  which  is  inconsistent  with  his  omnipo- 
tence. To  obviate  this  objection,  it  is  said  that 
the  justice  which  prevents  God's  free  forgiveness  is 
a  part  of  the  nature  of  God  himself;  that  the  bar  to 
his  free  action  springing  from  his  own  essential  na- 
ture is  not  an  inconsistency  in  our  conception  of 
God.  God's  justice  is  therefore  thought  of  as  analo- 
gous to  what  in  man  we  term  honour  or  self-respect, 
that  quality  which  carries  with  it  the  sense  of  man's 
own  worth,  the  strength  and  persistence  of  his  per- 
sonality. This  fundamental  quality,  constituting 
the  essential  personality  of  God,  must  be  satisfied; 
God's  love  cannot  act  in  disregard  of  it. 

The  first  objection  to  this  is  that  justice,  as  so 


l-i-i  TllK    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

conceived,  is  inapplicable  to  God.  The  qualities  of 
personal  honour  and  self-respect  are  unthinkable  ex- 
cept as  involving  a  certain  relationship  to  other 
beings.  And  the  fundamental  condition  of  this  re- 
lationship is  equality.  Honour  and  self-respect 
obtain  only  among  equals.  Therefore  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  apply  them  to  the  being  who  is  supreme 
above  man. 

Again,  it  is  impossible  to  deduce  the  redemption 
from  God  as  an  act  of  justice  except  by  inadmissible 
assumptions.  Such  is  that  not  uncommon  applica- 
tion of  physical  analogy.  A  certain  rough,  popular 
theology  treats  God's  love  and  justice  as  if  they 
were  physical  objects,  two  parts  of  God's  nature, 
lying  side  by  side,  between  which  it  is  easy  to  ar- 
rang"e  a  barter.  But  when  we  conceive  God's  nature 
by  the  only  applicable  analogy,  that  of  human  na- 
ture, we  are  forced  to  acknowledge  the  impossibility 
of  a  theory  which,  when  we  cancel  theological  ter- 
giversation, simply  amounts  to  this,  that  God  pla- 
cated himself.  God  desired  to  save  man  from  sin 
and  death  :  that  desire  proceeded  from  his  love.  But 
his  justice  prevents  him;  it  demands  to  be  satisfied 
before  the  intention  of  love  can  be  carried  out. 
There  is  no  being  outside  of  God  who  can  satisfy  it. 
Therefore  God's  love,  by  sending  Christ  into  the 
world,  satisfies  God's  justice.  This  can  be  stated  in 
words,  as  any  other  proposition;  it  can  be  believed, 
as  any  other  statement  can  be  believed.  But  made 
intelligible  to  the  human  mind,  we  must  frankly 
acknowledge  it  cannot  be. 


THE    IDEA    OF   GOD.  145 

In  Professor  Fisher's  recent  work  on  the  History 
of  Christian  Doctrine  there  is  an  interesting  descrip- 
tion of  an  attempt  by  the  late  Horace  Bushnell  to 
make  this  theory  of  the  atonement  inteUigible.  He 
constructs  a  theory  of  propitiation  by  psychological 
analysis:'  "  It  had  struck  him  that  in  all  cases  of 
heavy  grievance,  even  though  there  is  a  placable 
wish  and  intent,  it  is  psychologically  impossible  to 
quiet  the  resentful  retributive  impulse  inherent  in 
one's  own  conscience,  save  by  undertaking  some 
work  involving  loss  and  suffering  in  behalf  of  the 
offender.  Only  by  this  means  is  the  feeling  of  for- 
giveness realized  in  the  heart  of  the  party  wronged 

Accordingly  God  himself  in  Christ  enters 
upon  a  work  of  self-sacrifice  and   self-propitiation 

he  appeases  his  own  justly  indignant  senti- 
ment."  This  is  certainly  a  very  acute  analysis.  Its 
validity,  however,  hangs  upon  one  point,  about 
which  there  is  serious  question.  The  "  resentful, 
retributive  impulse  "  which  must  be  "propitiated  " 
is  assumed  to  be  "  inherent  in  one's  own  con- 
science." But  when  we  reflect  how  common  it  is 
to  assign  a  very  mistaken  value  to  one's  own  feel- 
ings, we  are  led  to  question  whether  this  "  resent- 
ful, retributive  impulse  "  is  not  rather  the  expression 
of  a  human  sinful  weakness.  Should  that  be  the 
case,  then  if  the  man  is  able  to  overcome  his  natural 
resentful  inclination  by  "  undertaking  some  work 
involving  loss  and  suffering  in  behalf  of  the  offen- 

*  This  theory  is  known  to  me  only  through  Professor  Fisher's 
book. 


146  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

der, "  it  Is  evidence  that  he  has  gained  the  victory  in 
a  struggle  between  his  better  and  his  worse  self. 
But  upon  this  supposition  to  argue  a  "  resentful, 
retributive  impulse  "  in  God  would  be  to  attribute 
to  him  human  weakness.  We  are  confirmed  in  our 
belief  that  this  is  the  more  correct  interpretation  of 
the  human  feelings  by  applying  our  test  of  God. 
Can  we  put  our  trust  in  a  God  whom  we  believe  to 
be  actuated  by  a  "  resentful,  retributive  impulse  "  ? 
The  heart  and  the  mind  find  no  rest  in  such  a  God. 
No  such  psychological  analysis  can  cover  up  the  fatal 
dualism  of  this  conception  of  God. 

From  the  impossibility  of  conceiving  God's  justice 
and  his  love  as  existing  side  by  side  we  are  obliged 
to  take  refuge  in  one  of  the  two  following  positions: 
Either  justice,  being  the  fundamental  quality,  is  a 
power  above  God,  to  which  he  is  subject ;  it  would 
then  be  conceived  as  the  mysterious  Fate  of  Greek 
mythology,  exercising  a  controlling  influence  over 
the  Deity.  Or  else,  God  being  thought  of  as  the  im- 
personation of  justice,  who  for  his  own  righteousness' 
sake  cannot  waive  any  of  the  rigidity  of  his  law,  the 
redemption  must  be  understood  as  a  change  effected 
in  God's  action  through  a  motive  from  without.  This 
is  done  by  Christ's  '  *  merit. ' '  Christ's  service  for  man 
makes  it  possible  for  God  to  pardon  human  sin. 
Christ,  as  it  were,  wins  pardon  from  God.  But,  as 
man  could  not  possibly  by  his  own  merit  effect  this 
end,  Christ  must  be  more  than  man,  he  is  divine. 
The  result  is, — two  Gods. 

The  first  alternative,  therefore,  is  a  God  above  the 


THE   IDEA   OF   GOD.  147 

God  of  revelation,  the  other  is  two  equal  Gods. 
There  seems  to  be  no  escape.  It  is  worse  than 
useless  to  delude  ourselves  in  order  to  maintain  a 
theory  which  has  the  stamp  of  orthodoxy  and  the 
prestige  of  a  high  pedigree.  The  argumentation 
which  is  resorted  to  to  make  this  theory  seem  ra- 
tional offers  mere  plausibility  for  convincing  proof. 
We  are  concerned  here  with  the  most  sacred  interests 
of  religion.  We  stand  upon  the  holiest  of  grounds. 
Here  to  resort  to  self-deception  argues  surely  a  shal- 
lowness of  feeling  which  is  as  unworthy  of  man  as  it 
is  irreverent  to  God.  Let  us  remember  that  we  are 
seeking  a  theoretical  basis  for  our  practical  needs. 
We  are  reasoning  backwards  from  the  wants  which 
we  feel  to  what  we  must  understand  as  necessary  if 
those  wants  are  to  be  satisfied.  When  a  man,  in 
the  stress  of  life's  experience,  throws  his  trust  upon 
the  power  to  which  he  looks  up  as  God,  he  does  not 
stop  to  enquire  into  the  nature  of  that  power.  But 
such  is  the  craving  of  our  intellectual  nature,  that  in 
moments  of  reflection  we  are  impelled  to  bring  our 
theory  into  harmony  with  our  practice.  And  we  do 
not  feel  that  we  completely  satisfy  our  own  wants  un- 
til we  have  learned  to  think  such  a  God  as  our  minds, 
as  well  as  our  hearts,  can  rest  upon  in  confidence  and 
trust.  It  is  perfectly  possible,  upon  the  traditional  or 
any  other  assumptions,  to  construct  an  idea  of  God 
which  shall  be  logical  and  entirely  harmonious  in 
all  its  parts;  but  if  it  is  simply  the  idea  of  a  God  and 
not  my  God,  it  is  of  no  value.  I  want  to  know  how  I 
am  to  think  of  "iny  God,  the  God  who  speaks  to  me, 


148  THK    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

with  whom  I  enter  into  fellowship,  who  forgives  my 
sins,  who  is  m}^  strength  and  support.  This  is  the 
meaning  of  the  tests  we  have  recognised.  They  are 
the  practical  criteria  of  thought ;  they  are  to  prevent 
it  from  losing  itself  in  profitless  abstractions,  looking 
for  a  foreign  God  ;  they  are  to  keep  it  directed  upon 
the  only  God  that  has  any  interest  for  me,  and  that 
is  my  God. 

The  mind  in  its  search  for  such  a  God  comes  to 
rest  only  in  a  definition  which  does  violence  to  no 
human  feeling.  This  cannot  be  said  of  that  God 
whom  we  have  to  conceive  of  under  two  contradic- 
tory attributes.  It  has  been  shown  that  such  dual- 
ism leads  us  to  one  of  three  positions :  either  a  God 
that  is  unthinkable  because  he  combines  things  con- 
tradictory; or  a  supreme  power  above  God;  or  two 
equal  Gods.  None  of  these  three  conclusions  can  be 
accepted,  because  it  is  simply  impossible  to  exercise 
that  trust,  which  is  the  Christian's  high  privilege,  in 
a  God  whom  we  have  to  conceive  under  one  of  these 
three  forms. 

Opposed  to  this  representation  of  God,  which 
makes  justice  his  fundamental  quality,  is  the  con- 
ception of  him  as  mere  arbitrary  will.  It  was  first 
set  forth  in  the  thirteenth  century  by  Duns  Scotus 
Erigena,  was  in  later  times  taken  up  by  the  Socinians 
and  became  current  among  them  and  the  Arminians 
in   variously   modified   forms.     God   is   mere  will — 

dominium  absolutum."  We  can  assign  no  reason 
why  he  should  act  in  one  way  rather  than  in  another. 


THE    IDEA    OF    GOD.  149 

The  laws  of  morality,  such  as  we  know  them,  are 
founded  upon  his  caprice;  he  might  just  as  well 
have  reversed  the  value  of  right  and  wrong.  Right 
is  right  for  no  other  reason  than  that  God  has  so 
willed  it,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  have 
so  willed.  He  might  have  created  the  world  differ- 
ently. He  is  man's  absolute  master.  We  are  his 
slaves.  He  can  do  with  us  as  he  chooses.  If  he 
deals  with  us  according  to  a  law,  that  is  his  choice. 
He  might  have  made  any  other  conceivable  law  and 
applied  it  to  us.  Why  he  placed  us  under  the  moral 
law  as  we  know  it,  we  cannot  tell.  It  was  his  arbi- 
trary will.  In  the  fulness  of  his  power  he  instituted 
the  ordinance  by  which  our  relation  to  him  is  deter- 
mined according  to  certain  principles.  God  is  not 
obliged  to  punish  sin,  he  may  freely  forgive.  He 
might  have  chosen  some  other  way  of  redeeming 
man  than  through  Christ.  Everything  is  accidental ; 
nothing  is  but  might  have  been  otherwise. 

It  is  evident  that  the  controlling  influence  in  the 
formation  of  this  conception  was  the  desire  to  avoid 
the  stumbling-block  of  the  other  theory,  the  assump- 
tion of  a  dualism  in  God.  But  the  Scotian  doctrine 
cannot  be  considered  as  marking  an  advance  in  the- 
ology. For,  aside  from  the  question  how  we  can 
conceive  of  a  being  who  is  nothing  but  undetermined 
will,  it  is  plain  that  a  God  whose  essential  character- 
istic is  indifference  falls  behind  the  demands  of  the 
ethical  and  spiritual  nature  and  therefore  fails  to  sat- 
isfy the  tests  we  recognise.  The  mere  caprice  of  a  God 
who  is  fundamentally  indifferent  to  the  distinctions  of 


150  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

right  and  wrong  is  an  insufficient  basis  for  the  ethi- 
cal law.  And  how  can  we  trust  a  God  who  has  no 
feeling  for  us,  who  may  annihilate  us  just  as  well  as 
he  may  save  us,  and  that  for  the  same  reason,  namely 
— no  reason?  The  appropriate  feeling  toward  such  a 
God  would  be  the  fear  of  the  slave,  not  the  confi- 
dence of  the  child. 

The  Scotian  representation  of  God  has  to-day 
more  of  a  theoretical  than  a  practical  interest.  It 
stands  aside  from  the  great  stream  of  theological 
thought.  But  it  was  necessary  to  thus  briefly  allude 
to  it,  in  order  to  give  completeness  to  our  survey 
and  to  show  that  within  the  traditional  limits  of  the- 
ological thought  both  alternatives  are  impossible. 

Two  conditions  seem  to  require  fulfilment  before 
we  can  promise  ourselves  any  adequate  solution  of 
the  problem  of  God.  The  first  is  a  more  distinct 
recognition  of  the  limits  of  human  knowledge,  the 
other  is  a  more  complete  and  candid  examination  of 
the  data  of  revelation.  These  two  conditions  corre- 
spond to  two  branches  of  research  in  which  there 
has  been  the  greatest  advance  in  modern  times. 
The  one  department  of  philosophy  in  which  we  see 
with  greater  clearness,  is  that  which  deals  with  the 
nature  of  human  faculties  and  their  limits;  while 
biblical  criticism  has  placed  the  Bible  in  a  new  light 
and  taught  us  to  appreciate  the  meaning  of  revela- 
tion as  never  before. 

We  now  understand  that  it  is  necessary  to  exercise 
self-restraint  in  our  efforts  to  know  God.     The  theo- 


THE    IDEA    OF    GOD.  151 

logical  labours  of  past  generations  represent  many 
futile  attempts  to  transcend  the  limits  of  the  finite. 
The  terminology  which  was  used,  by  its  vagueness 
deceived  those  who  used  it  into  thinking  that  they 
had  accomplished  the  impossible.  So,  when  it  was 
laid  down  that  God  was  "pure  being,"  "the"Oi^,"or 
"  the  absolute,"  or  when  God  was  defined  as  pure 
will.  These  terms,  if  they  conveyed  any  meaning  to 
the  mind,  conveyed  it  most  indistinctly,  but  that  very 
indistinctness  was  thought  to  be  a  mark  of  the  in- 
finite. The  phantom,  which  was  forever  evading 
human  grasp,  was  pursued  with  unabated  eagerness, 
until  at  last  it  came  to  be  recognised  that  there  is  a 
line  drawn  beyond  which  the  human  mind  cannot 
go ;  on  the  other  side  is  the  unknowable,  that  which 
it  is  above  our  powers  to  comprehend.  Life  we  may 
know,  we  may  conceive  of  a  being  who  represents 
life  such  as  we  know  it  in  its  fulness ;  but  the  grounds 
of  this  life,  what  it  is  in  its  essential  nature :  this  is 
a  secret  which  shall  not  be  revealed  until  we  are 
gifted  with  higher  intelligence.  And  it  avails  noth- 
ing to  invent  terms  and  phrases  which  fail  to  explain, 
but,  in  reality,  merely  serve  to  state  the  problem. 

The  other  condition  is  a  clearer  appreciation  of 
the  data  of  revelation.  The  one  greatest  effect  of 
concentrating  the  labour  of  the  keenest  intellects 
upon  the  biblical  problem,  as  has  been  done  now  for 
many  years,  is  this:  it  has  brought  out  Christ  as  the 
essential  revelation  of  God.  The  Bible  is  no  longer 
placed  above  Christ  as  an  oracle  of  equal  authority 
in  all  its  parts,  in  any  portion  of  which  we  may  find 


152  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

equally  valid  elements  of  revelation.  We  recognise 
gradations  in  the  Bible,  and  high  above  the  book 
stands  the  life  of  Christ  as  revealing  God.  We  find 
God  in  Christ.  The  story  of  his  life,  his  deeds,  his 
consciousness  as  his  words  reveal  it,  his  mission  as 
he  himself  conceived  it  and  as  it  was  received  in  the 
religious  consciousness  of  his  immediate  followers: 
these  are  the  data  for  our  knowledge  of  God,  and 
not  the  stories  of  Hebrew  Judges,  or  a  passage  in  a 
New  Testament  epistle  of  uncertain  authorship.* 

^  Heb.  xii.  29. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  IDEA  OF  GOD  {Coniinued). 

Underlying  the  argumentation  in  this  essay  is 
the  principle  of  the  essential  difference  between 
metaphysical  and  religious  thought.  It  comes  es- 
pecially into  play  in  our  reasoning  about  the  idea 
of  God  ;  and  as  it  is  of  fundamental  importance  to  our 
purpose,  I  shall  here  pause  in  the  argument  in  order 
to  examine  with  some  care  into  the  nature  and 
grounds  of  this  principle  and  the  limits  of  its  applica- 
tion. 

The  first  point  in  this  examination  must  be  an 
accurate  definition  of  the  terms  used ;  they  are  two : 
first,  Metaphysics;  second,  Religion.  Metaphysics 
is  that  science  which  investigates  the  grounds  of  all 
being.  The  most  ordinary  observation  soon  learns  to 
know  the  lack  of  reality  in  those  things  which  come 
under  our  perception.  There  is  no  colour  without 
the  eye,  no  sound  without  the  ear,  no  feeling  with- 
out the  touch.  Hence  the  word  "  phenomenon  " 
— that  which  appears ;  and  we  ask  what  is  the  reality 
underneath  ?  The  human  mind  knows  nothing  but 
phenomena.  Matter,  time,  space;  the  forms  of 
mental  judgment,  causation,  possibility,  necessity: 
all  these  are  phenomena.  Metaphysics  asks,  what  is 
the  reality  underlying  these  phenomena? 

153 


154  THE    KINGDOM    OP^   GOD. 

In  putting  this  question,  metaphysics  makes  no 
distinction.  It  knows  no  differences  of  value. 
Spirit  and  matter  are,  in  the  eyes  of  the  metaphysi- 
cian, perfectly  equal.  They  are  both,  alike,  manifes- 
tations of  a  something  behind.  It  is  that  something 
behind,  which  he  is  after.  He  is  impartial;  every- 
thing that  comes  under  his  observation  is  subjected 
to  the  same  treatment.  The  one  and  only  motive 
which  he  obeys  is  an  insatiable  curiosity  to  know, 
to  penetrate  as  far  as  human  intelligence  can  go. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  we  begin  our  differentiation 
of  religion  from  metaphysics.  The  view  of  the 
world  which  presents  itself  to  the  eye  of  religion  is 
not  homogeneous.  The  world  presents  to  religion 
an  inveterate  contradiction.  That  contradiction  is 
the  starting-point  of  the  religious  view  of  the  world. 
It  is  the  contradiction  of  matter  and  spirit,  coming 
to  a  point  in  the  nature  of  man.  To  the  theologian 
this  is  the  one  fact  of  absorbing  interest.  I  know 
myself  to  be  an  insignificant  particle  in  the  vast 
whole  which  we  call  Nature ;  I  am  one  small  factor 
in  the  grand  comprehensive  system  of  world-evolu- 
tion. But  do  I,  therefore,  resign  myself  to  being 
merely  a  part  of  a  machine  ?  The  very  fact  that  I 
am  able  to  put  the  question  carries  with  it  a  decided 
negative.  I  am  told  that  I  am  descended  from  the 
lower  animals,  and  that  I  am  on  a  level  with  them. 
But  when  I  want  to  know  myself,  I  ask  the  man 
that  I  am,  not  the  ape  that  I  was.  There  is  a  voice 
within  tells  me  with  an  irresistibly  coercive  force  of 
argument  that  I  and  nature  are  not  one,  that  there 


THE   IDEA   OF   GOD.  155 

is  in  me  something  above  nature.  To  vary  a  little 
the  fine  phrase  which  I  have  quoted  from  Mr.  James 
Martineau,  it  is  the  irresistible  pleading  of  personal- 
ity that   makes   us   rebel    against  confounding    the 

I  "with  nature. 

This,  then,  is  the  fundamental  difference  between 
religion  and  metaphysics.  To  the  eye  of  the  meta- 
physician nature  is  one.  To  the  eye  of  the  theo- 
logian nature  is  two:  my  nature  and  nature  outside 
of  me. 

From  this  initial  distinction  between  the  two  we 
now  proceed  to  differentiate  the  purposes  which 
metaphysics  and  rehgion  severally  serve,  and  the 
ends  which  they  aim  at.  I  have  already  spoken  of 
the  motive  which  the  metaphysician  obeys :  it  is 
curiosity,  that  peculiar  characteristic  stamped  upon 
the  human  mind,  by  which  it  is  impelled  to  search 
through  the  heights  and  in  the  depths  for  the 
meaning  of  all  things.  The  motive  underlying  re- 
ligion springs  from  that  contradiction  of  which  I 
have  spoken. 

Religious  beliefs  have  developed.  The  religious 
instincts  have  remained  essentially  the  same  from 
the  beginning.  Men  have  been  led  to  religion  by 
the  same  religious  needs.  The  historical  method  of 
dealing  with  religion,  which  in  other  respects  has 
been  so  sadly  abused,  informs  us  as  to  the  religious 
instincts  of  the  race.  The  religious  want  of  man  has 
always  been  that  of  a  power  above  himself  to  help  him 
against  opposing  forces,  to  furnish  him  the  solution 
of  the  great  contradiction  of  his  nature.     What  con- 


156  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

ccptions  have  been  held  of  that  power,  whether  it 
was  thought  of  as  a  ghost,  an  angel,  or  a  god,  makes 
no  difference.  The  essential  purpose  which  religious 
observances  of  any  kind  served  was  to  find  protec- 
tion and  aid  against  the  powers  of  nature:  disease, 
enemies,  the  elements.  In  this  respect  man  has  not 
changed.  Here  we  have  a  characteristic  inherent  in 
human  nature,  the  desire  for  help.  As  civilisation 
has  advanced,  the  ideas  of  the  nature  of  the  pro- 
tecting power  and  of  the  manner  of  its  operation 
have  become  refined.  But  essentially,  what  the 
Christian  seeks  in  his  religion  is  the  same  as  that 
which  the  original  savage  sought :  the  aid  of  a  power 
above  for  the  upholding  of  the  claims  of  his  person- 
ality as  against  the  opposing  forces  of  the  world. 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  as  the  initial  view  of 
religion  differs  from  that  of  the  metaphysician,  so 
the  motive  and  the  object  differ.  Religion  is  not 
prompted  by  curiosity.  The  motive  behind  religious 
observances  and  religious  thought  is  as  practical  as 
that  of  the  drowning  man  who  reaches  out  for  the 
plank  to  keep  him  above  water.  The  object  of  re- 
ligion is  not  to  penetrate  into  the  reality  of  the 
"  thing  in  itself,"  but  to  make  life  worth  living  by 
opening  up  a  vista  of  confidence  and  hope,  to  give 
the  answer  to  the  yearning  of  the  heart  which  is  so 
much  deeper  than  the  desire  for  knowledge:  "  Oh 
Lord,  in  thee  have  I  trusted :  let  me  never  be  con- 
founded." 

These  considerations  will  go  to  explain  why  the 
god  of  metaphysics,  if  the  metaphysical  abstraction 


THE    IDEA   OF    GOD.  157 

can  be  called  a  god,  falls  so  far  short  of  the  fulness 
of  the  Christian  idea  of  God.  The  god  who  is 
merely  the  substratum  of  reality  underlying  phe- 
nomena is  very  far  from  the  being  whom  we  seek 
that  we  may  trust  him.  But  the  contrast  which  I 
have  here  drawn  between  the  metaphysical  and  the 
religious  must  not  be  understood  to  imply  that  the- 
ology absolutely  excludes  the  use  of  metaphysics. 
It  will,  therefore,  now  be  necessary  to  state  with  all 
possible  accuracy  just  what  is  claimed  and  what  is 
denied. 

We  are  always  running  up  against  this  difficulty  in 
religion,  that  when  a  principle  is  enunciated,  espe- 
cially if  it  is  a  new  one,  it  is  very  apt  to  be  taken 
hold  of  and  set  up  as  exclusive  of  all  other  principles. 
It  is  a  popular  tendency  to  judge  by  contraries. 
A  thing  must  be  either  absolutely  right  or  absolutely 
wrong.  Our  Saviour  uttered  certain  rebukes  against 
the  abuse  of  riches.  Riches  were,  therefore,  to  be 
condemned :  hence  asceticism.  We  find  it  hard  to 
persuade  men  of  the  principle  of  proportion  which 
Christ  recognized.  It  is  often  not  so  much  a  ques- 
tion of  what  is  absolutely  right  and  what  is  abso- 
lutely wrong,  as  of  what  is  first  and  what  is  second. 
So  it  is  with  our  mental  operations.  We  use  our  mind 
for  the  formation  of  different  kinds  of  judgment. 
In  every  judgment,  however,  all  the  three  psychical 
functions  are  operative :  the  intellect,  the  feeling, 
and  the  will.  The  judgments  do  not  differ  by  the 
exclusion  of  any  one  of  these  functions;  but  they 
are  distinguished  by  the  prominence  of  the  one  or 


158  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOT). 

the  other.  In  the  theoretical  judgments  which  are 
appHed  to  the  scientific  investigation  of  phenomena, 
all  three  functions  operate;  but  the  intellectual  is  the 
dominant  function.  In  the  religious  judgment  the 
factor  of  feeling  is  the  decisive  one ;  but  that  does 
not  imply  that  the  intellectual  is  excluded. 

This  will  help  us  to  understand  in  how  far  religion 
excludes  metaphysics.  The  former  is  governed  by 
an  intellectual  interest  in  the  grounds  of  all  being. 
This  interest  is  not  entirely  excluded  from  religion, 
but  it  is  altogether  subordinated  to  the  practical 
interests  of  life.  The  religious  judgments  may  be 
permeated  by  a  metaphysical  interest,  but  this  in- 
terest is  not  the  dominant  factor.  Religious 
thought  is  distinguished  by  the  fact  that  the  ulti- 
mate motive  is  always  a  practical  one.  The  de- 
cisive factor  in  theological  reasoning  is  the  nearer  or 
more  remote  value  which  the  object  has  for  the 
personal  life. 

The  latter  distinction  between  a  nearer  and  more 
remote  value  leads  us  to  a  second  qualification  of  the 
general  contrast  between  metaphysics  and  religion. 
A  religious  judgment  may  be  pursued  to  its  conse- 
quences and  become  more  and  more  metaphysical. 
We  shall  see,  in  the  course  of  our  further  argument 
on  the  idea  of  God,  that  this  idea  is  first  reached  by 
a  strictly  religious  judgment.  We  learn  to  know 
first,  not  God  in  general,  but  our  God,  God  so  far  as 
he  has  meaning  and  value  for  the  ends  of  our  per- 
sonal life.  But  the  idea  of  God  being  thus  deter- 
mined, the  inquisitive  functions  of  the  mind  impel 


THE   IDEA   OF    GOD.  159 

US  to  go  further  and  to  harmonise  this  idea  with 
other  general  notions.  Our  conception  of  God  be- 
comes thus  more  and  more  detached  from  actual 
experience.  Nevertheless,  the  chain  is  not  broken 
which  binds  the  conception  of  God  to  the  practical 
needs  of  life ;  we  are  only  tracing  it  backward.  This 
procedure,  which  begins  with  experience,  with  the 
God  for  us,  and  goes  back  step  by  step  towards  a 
knowledge  of  God  in  himself,  is  the  reverse  of  that 
process  which  begins  as  far  as  possible  from  our 
personal  needs  in  the  barren  abstraction  of  the  In- 
finite or  the  Absolute,  and  upon  that  foundation 
builds  the  distinctively  personal  attributes  of  God. 

I  believe  it  is  the  one  contribution  to  theology 
which  more  than  any  other  will  secure  to  Albrecht 
Ritschl  a  unique  place  among  Christian  thinkers, 
to  have  clearly  defined  the  difference  between  meta- 
physical and  religious  thought.  The  consequences, 
I  cannot  but  think,  are  very  far-reaching.  It  may 
seem  to  some  a  mere  academic  distinction  ;  but  such 
forget  that  what  is  a  distinct,  tangible  conception  in 
the  minds  of  the  thoughtful  is,  in  the  minds  of  the 
great  bulk  of  people,  a  habit  of  mitid,  a  temper,  a 
disposition,  a  way  of  looking  at  things.  And,  by 
the  reverse  process  of  reasoning,  if  any  such  habit 
of  mind,  temper,  disposition,  and  way  of  looking  at 
things  in  the  common  mind  is  held  to  be  wrong  and 
dangerous,  the  only  way  to  change  it  is  by  tracing  it 
to  its  logical  antecedents  and  bringing  convincing 
proof  of  the  inadequacy  of  the  corresponding  form 
of  thought  as  it  is  held  by  thinking  minds. 


1(>0  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

There  is  a  certain  habit  of  mind  and  way  of  look- 
ing at  religion  widely  current  among  the  masses  of 
the  people,  which  is  endangering  the  interests  of  re- 
ligion. I  appeal  to  those  who  have  had  the  practi- 
cal experience  of  the  cure  of  souls.  What  is  the 
greatest  difificulty  you  have  had  to  deal  with  ?  Is  it 
not  the  inveterate  tendency  to  confound  curiosity 
with  the  religious  instinct  ?  Religion  is  made 
synonymous  with  the  mere  knowledge  of  super- 
natural things.  Those  who  are  excessively  inquisi- 
tive about  the  time  of  Christ's  second  coming,  the 
nature  of  the  resurrection  body,  the  millennial  king- 
dom and  all  the  many  questions  concerning  the 
future  life,  will  be  utterly  indifferent  to  the  ethical 
and  spiritual  interests  of  religion.  But  this  is  simply 
the  metaphysical  curiosity  of  uninstructed  minds. 

A  greater  danger  than  this  lies  in  the  religious  in- 
difference and  agnosticism  of  the  cultured  classes. 
Men  of  our  generation  are  devoting  an  unparalleled 
enthusiasm  to  the  ethical  interests  of  humanity;  but 
underneath  this  ethical  enthusiasm  there  is,  we  can- 
not deny  it,  an  indifference  to,  and  a  suspicion  of,  the 
strictly  religious,  which  as  surely  as  all  action  must 
proceed  from  conviction,  will  yield  a  disastrous  har- 
vest in  the  coming  generation.  And  why  this  in- 
difference, this  suspicion  ?  Simply  because  educated 
men  are  no  longer  interested  in  truths  which  have 
been  presented  to  them  as  intellectual  verities ; 
simply  because  our  theology  has  not  shown  the  con- 
nection between  the  sacred  truths  of  religion  and  the 
practical  necessities  of  everyday  life. 


THE    IDEA   OF   GOD.  161 

If  we  are  ever  to  have  a  revival  of  true  religion, 
if  men  shall  come  again  to  view  life  in  the  light  of 
the  revelation  of  Jesus,  the  first  condition  is  that  the 
metaphysical  canker  be  cut  out  of  religion  and  the 
spiritual  interests  of  man  be  once  more  acknow- 
ledged in  their  supreme  importance. 

I  have  said  that  two  things  are  necessary  before 
we  can  hope  to  solve  the  problem  of  God :  the 
recognition  of  the  limitations  imposed  upon  human 
knowledge,  and  a  better  understanding  of  the  reve- 
lation of  God  in  Christ.  Recalling  to  our  minds 
these  necessary  conditions,  we  now  proceed  to  en- 
quire into  the  nature  of  the  Christian  idea  of  God. 

At  the  opening  of  our  Morning  Prayer  there  is  an 
expression,  significant  from  the  position  in  which  it 
stands,  which  points  to  the  true  knowledge  of  God 
in  Christ.  When,  in  the  general  confession,  we  have 
confessed  our  sins,  the  priest  stands  up  to  "  declare 
and  pronounce  to  his  people,  being  penitent,  the 
Absolution  and  Remission  of  their  sins,"  and  he 
does  this  in  the  name  of  ''Almighty  God,  the  Father 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.''  The  Church  bids  us 
seek  forgiveness  of  the  God  who  is  "  the  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  With  a  true  insight,  the 
Church  recognises  in  the  expression  of  God's  rela- 
tion to  Christ  the  revelation  to  the  Christian  of  the 
true  nature  of  God.      He  is  a  God  of  love. 

We  distinguish  several  elements  in  Christ's  revela- 
tion. There  is  first  the  bare  fact  of  his  having  been 
sent  into  the  world.     There  was  strongly  impressed 


162  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

upon  Christ  the  sense  of  his  mission ;  hence  his  fre- 
quent references  to  being  "  sent  "  :  "  That  the  world 
may  know  that  thou  hast  sent  inc/'  His  followers 
distinctly  received  him  as  sent  from  heaven  for 
the  benefit  of  man:  "  This  is  a  true  saying  and 
worthy  of  all  men  to  be  received  that  Christ  Jesus 
came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners  "  (i  Tim.  i. 
15);  "  We  have  seen  and  do  testify  that  the  Father 
sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world  "  (i  John 
iv.  14).  Christ  came  as  from  God  and  was  received 
as  the  gift  of  God.  And  when  those  who  thus  re- 
ceived him  reflected  upon  the  nature  of  the  God 
who  had  sent  Christ,  there  could  be  but  one  conclu- 
sion. This  conclusion  is  distinctly  expressed  by  St. 
John  (i,  iv.  9):  "In  this  was  manifested  the  love 
of  God  toward  us,  because  that  God  sent  his  only- 
begotten  Son  into  the  world,  that  we  might  live 
through  him."  This  is  a  clear  statement  of  the  im- 
pression which  the  mission  of  Christ  makes  in  regard 
to  the  nature  of  God.  The  God  who  sent  his  Son 
into  the  world  to  save  man  is  a  God  of  love.  The 
simple  fact  of  Christ's  mission  can  be  interpreted  in 
no  other  way.  It  could  have  proceeded  but  from 
one  motive:  love.  This  is  the  primary  revelation 
of  God  which  we  have  in  Christ. 

Then  there  is  the  teaching  of  Christ.  Where  are 
the  essential  points  of  Christ's  teaching  to  be  found  ? 
In  the  appendix  to  some  parables,  in  language  which 
is  strongly  figurative,  which  speaks  of  the  fire  that 
is  not  quenched  and  the  worm  which  dieth  not  ? 
Or  shall  we  turn  to  find  the  burden  of  Christ's  teach- 


THE    IDEA    OF    GOD.  163 

ing  to  such  chapters  as  the  fifteenth  of  St.  Luke, 
with  its  parables  of  the  lost  sheep,  the  lost  coin,  and 
the  prodigal  son?  and  to  the  last  chapters  of  St. 
John's  Gospel,  the  instructions  to  the  disciples  at 
the  last  supper  and  the  high-priestly  prayer  ?  Surely 
the  candid  student  of  Christ's  words  must  admit 
that  if  there  was  one  truth  above  all  others  that 
Christ  sought  to  impress,  it  was  a  heavenly  Father's 
love. 

Finally,  there  are  Christ's  actions.  These  speak 
with  no  uncertain  sound.  St.  Peter  sums  up  his 
activity  in  these  words:  "  He  went  about  doing 
good."  It  is  only  that  dualistic  conception  which 
separates  love  and  justice,  Christ  and  the  Father, 
that  can  fail  to  recognise  in  the  beneficent  activity 
of  Christ — an  activity  which  had  but  one  purpose, 
that  of  bringing  happiness  to  man — the  revelation 
of  a  God  to  whom  the  well-being  of  his  children  is 
the  supreme  purpose,  who,  therefore,  is  a  God  of 
love. 

If  we  take  Christ  in  his  earthly  life  as  the  revelation 
of  God,  we  cannot  fail  to  acknowledge  as  the  Chris- 
tian idea  of  God,  a  God  whose  nature  is  love.' 

^  There  is  no  sharper  antithesis  in  theology  than  between  that 
doctrine  which  begins  with  God  and  goes  on  to  Christ,  and  that 
which  begins  with  Christ  and  leads  up  to  God  the  Father.  The  the- 
ology which  begins  with  the  Christian  God  as  given  (by  reason  or  by 
nature)  has  but  an  accidental  place  for  Christ.  The  permanent  and 
necessary  place  of  Christ  in  theology  is  as  the  revelation  of  God,  the 
means  of  knowing  God:  "He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the 
Father."  I  may  refer  to  Browning's  "  Epistle  of  Karshish  "  for  a 
most  powerful  and  striking  presentation  of  this  significance  of  Christ. 


164  THE    KINGDOM    OP"   GOD. 

But  it  will  be  maintained  that  there  are  other  at- 
tributes which  must  be  added  before  God's  full 
nature  has  been  expressed ;  that  alongside  of  the 
love  there  is  something  else;  that  there  is,  in  short, 
another  side  of  God's  nature.  There  is  the  holiness 
of  God,  his  righteousness,  his  justice,  his  anger;  all 
these  are  plainly  stamped  upon  the  Bible's  revela- 
tion of  God.  And  not  only  does  the  Old  Testament 
teach  them,  but  the  New  Testament,  though  it  does 
not  give  to  these  attributes  the  same  prominence, 
yet  does  acknowledge  their  presence  in  God.  Let 
us,  therefore,  consider  these  qualities. 

Holiness  is  the  fundamental  character  of  God  in 
the  Old  Testament.  "  I  the  Lord  your  God  am 
holy  "  (Lev.  xix.  2) — these  words  express  the 
thought  of  an  Hebrew.  In  the  New  Testament 
this  quality  gives  way  to  another  and  is  almost  lost 
out  of  sight.  Holiness  is  not  like  the  other  attri- 
butes of  God,  a  single  quality;  it  is  rather  a  com- 
prehensive characterisation.  It  filled  out  the 
Hebrew's  entire  conception  of  Jehovah.  Its  prin- 
cipal notes  are:  first,  unapproachableness.  This 
meaning  carries  with  it  the  distinction  of  God  from 
man,  his  distance  above  the  sphere  of  the  human. 
Secondly,  it  expresses  God's  aversion  to  impurity. 
It  is  the  contrary  of  sin.  The  holiness  of  God  is 
therefore  understood  as  denoting  the  negation  of 
those  imperfections  which  attach  to  the  creature. 
As  such  it  is  an  essential  element  in  our  idea  of  God. 
God  is  to  us  a  holy  God.  But  we  must  be  careful 
not  to  apply  this  character  to  God  as  he  is  prior  to 


THE    IDEA    OF    GOD.  165 

his  relation  to  man.  As  forming  a  background  to 
the  character  of  God,  holiness  has  no  meaning;  for 
it  becomes  intelligible  only  by  its  negation,  sin,  and 
sin  has  no  place  in  God's  being.  Therefore  God's 
holiness  forms  no  opposition  to  his  love.  His  holi- 
ness is  known  to  us  only  in  his  love,  not  as  a  quality 
apart  from  his  love.  God  is  not  known  to  us  as  first 
holy,  then  loving;  but  only  as  holy  love.  When  we 
say  that  God  is  love,  we  mean  that  there  is  nothing 
behind  his  love,  no  other  quality  of  which  we  be- 
come cognisant  as  antecedent  to  his  love.  We 
must,  it  is  true,  conceive  of  God  as  omnipotent  and 
omniscient,  but  he  is  all-powerful  and  all-wise  in  his 
love.  So,  also,  he  is  holy  ;  but  we  learn  to  know  him 
as  holy  in  his  love. 

In  speaking  of  the  atonement,  I  endeavoured  to 
show  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins  can  rightly  be  re- 
ferred only  to  God  as  Father.  It  is  the  fault  of  the 
popular  theory  that  it  starts  from  the  necessity  of  a 
satisfaction  to  God  before  man  can  be  forgiven. 
This  leads  inevitably  to  that  dualism  in  our  con- 
ception of  God  in  which  it  is  impossible  for  the 
mind  to  rest.  The  simple  representation  of  God, 
as  it  is  given  to  us  in  the  revelation  of  Christ,  does 
away  with  the  dualism.  The  necessity  of  the  satis- 
faction which  Christ  wrought  was  in  man.  God  did 
not  have  to  be  reconciled.  There  is  nothing  in 
God  behind  his  holy  love  which  stands  in  the  way 
of  his  free  forgiveness. 

We  see  then  how  the  idea  of  God  is  the  touch- 
stone of  our  theories  of    the  atonement.     A   false 


16B  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

theory  leads  to  a  false  conception  of  God.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  theory  of  the  atonement  which  I 
have  endeavoured  to  set  forth  leads  to  a  conception 
of  God  which  is  at  one  in  itself,  in  which  the  mind 
finds  rest. 

There  is  but  a  shade  of  difference  between  the 
attribute  of  holiness  as  applied  to  God,  and  those  of 
righteousness  and  justice.  As  the  background  of 
his  being,  as  the  groundwork  of  his  character,  they 
are  alike  inconceivable.  The  attribute  of  justice, 
under  another  meaning,  that  of  the  equal  treatment 
of  all,  follows  from  his  love.  For  it  is  evident  that 
God  must  treat  all  alike  if  he  loves  his  creatures. 

It  remains  to  deal  with  the  last  objection  that  has 
been  mentioned.  What  about  the  wrath  of  God  ? 
God's  wrath  appears  indelibly  stamped  upon  the 
Bible  and  seems  necessary  to  an  adequate  concep- 
tion of  the  Deity.  Just  here,  however,  we  are  im- 
pressed with  the  great  distance  that  separates  the 
Old  Testament  from  the  New.  The  former  is  full 
of  wrath  and  vengeance ;  and  if  we  had  to  consider 
the  Old  Testament  as  God's  supreme  revelation  to 
man  and  were  not  obliged  to  allow  for  a  very  decided 
anthropomorphic  tendency,  we  should  have  to  revise 
very  considerably  the  foregoing  statements  in  regard 
to  the  being  of  God.  But  we  find  that  the  wrath 
of  God  is  by  no  means  wanting  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  in  the  words  of  Christ.  A  brief  examina- 
tion of  these  passages  will  be  necessary. 

Where  the  wrath  of  God  is  expressed  in  the  gos- 
pels, it  is  directed  against  hardened  sinners.      So  it 


THE   IDEA   OF    GOB.  167 

is  at  the  conclusion  of  the  various  eschatological 
parables,  as  the  parable  of  the  feast:  "  Bind  him 
hand  and  foot,  and  take  him  away  and  cast  him  into 
outer  darkness;  there  shall  be  weeping  and  gnash- 
ing of  teeth  "  (St.  Matt.  xxii.  13).  We  have  also, 
as  bearing  upon  this  point,  those  scenes  in  which 
Christ's  indignation  comes  out,  as  in  the  desecration 
of  the  temple  and  the  denunciation  of  the  Pharisees. 
Taking  these  several  instances  into  consideration,  we 
may  draw  this  conclusion  :  there  is  a  legitimate  sense 
in  which  wrath  can  be  predicated  of  God.  It  may 
mean,  first,  the  final  turning  away  of  God  from 
those  who  are  hopelessly  hardened  in  sin,  who  have 
taken  the  definitive  resolve  against  the  divine  love. 
This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  in  the  parables. 
Then,  there  must  be  a  place  for  God's  wrath  as 
against  all  persistent  sin.  Here  it  is  the  reverse  of 
his  love,  the  divine  attitude  as  against  sin.  But  here, 
again,  we  must  carefully  guard  against  that  dualism 
which  would  conceive  of  God's  wrath  for  his  own 
sake.  Vengeance  is  a  decidedly  anthropomorphic 
term  applied  to  God.  If  we  allow  any  idea  of  vin- 
dictiveness,  any  notion  that  God  inflicts  suffering 
for  the  sake  of  satisfying  a  supposed  "  righteous- 
ness "  in  himself,  we  set  up  a  god  above  our  God, 
and  make  him  unthinkable.  So  too  with  God's  pun- 
ishment. We  may  conceive  of  physical  evil  or  of 
the  distress  of  conscience  as  the  punishment  of  sin, 
but  not  as  inflicted  by  God  to  gratify  himself;  rather 
as  a  means  of  correcting  and  training  his  creatures. 
So  understood,  punishment  flows  from  God's  love. 


168  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

We  may  illustrate  the  limits  within  which  we  can 
conceive  of  the  wrath  or  the  punishment  of  God  by 
the  analogy  which  Christ  most  frequently  used,  that 
of  father.  We  generally  account  it  a  sign  of  weak- 
ness when  a  father  loses  his  temper  in  punishing  a 
child.  He  then  does  it  out  of  vindictiveness.  But  a 
father  rightly  punishes  out  of  love  for  the  child,  to 
improve  its  character.  So,  too,  a  father,  after  he 
has  done  all  he  could  for  his  child,  and  the  child  per- 
sistently turns  from  him  and  perseveres  in  his  evil 
course  and  hardens  himself  to  all  loving  appeals,  may 
give  way  to  his  indignation,  may  utter  scathing  re- 
buke, and  in  the  end  may  turn  from  the  child  and 
cut  off  all  intercourse  with  him.  He  will  be  hence- 
forth a  stranger.  But  is  not  this  indignation  and  the 
final  sentence  perfectly  in  accord  with  a  father's 
love  ?  Can  we  not  imagine,  even  while  the  father's 
indignation  is  kindling  his  tongue  to  the  sharpest 
rebuke,  that  his  heart  is  wrung  with  anguish  for  the 
waywardness  of  the  loved  child?  and  even  when  he 
turns  from  him,  after  all  effort  has  proved  futile,  it 
is  in  deepest  sorrow  ;  and  if  the  child  should  show  at 
any  moment  signs  of  repentance,  would  not  the 
father — as  Christ  described  it  in  the  parable — quickly 
go  to  meet  him  ? 

"  It  is  of  the  greatest  importance  for  a  systematic 
method  of  theology,  that  we  should  never  leave  out 
of  view  the  divergence  between  our  individual  re- 
ligious reflexion  and  the  form  of  theological  specu- 
lation '  sub  specie  aeternitatis. '  "  The  distinction, 
which  this  quotation  from  Ritschl  makes,  is  between 


THE    IDEA    OF    GOD.  169 

the  feeling  which  comes  to  us  naturally  according  to 
the  anthropomorphic  way  of  thinking  of  God,  and 
the  higher  conceptions  which  we  form,  when  we  sub- 
ject our  natural  impressions  to  the  control  of  reason 
and  try  to  harmonise  our  ideas.  It  is  natural  that 
we  should  in  a  devotional  attitude  feel  the  **  wrath  " 
of  God,  and  natural  that  we  should  pray,  as  we  do  in 
the  Litany  and  elsewhere,  to  be  delivered  from  his 
wrath ;  but  in  our  reflective  moments  we  correct  and 
give  the  proper  interpretation  to  the  anthropo- 
morphism contained  in  such  forms. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  wrath  of  God, 
properly  understood,  does  not  demand  any  other 
conception  of  God  than  that  of  holy  love.  One  im- 
portant practical  corollary  is  to  be  drawn  from  this 
conclusion.  It  applies  to  the  use  of  fear  in  religion. 
The  appeal  to  the  sense  of  fear  in  the  unconverted 
is  based  upon  a  different  conception  of  God  than 
that  above  given.  The  latter  allows  no  scope  to 
fear,  as  commonly  understood,  in  the  Christian  re- 
ligion. The  "  fear  of  God  "  is  a  different  thing 
from  the  trembling  before  the  vindictive,  vengeful 
being,  who  in  the  minds  of  many  has  stood  in  the 
place  of  God.  It  is  quite  certain  that  the  appeal  to 
fear,  by  placing  before  men  such  a  God  in  place  of 
"  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  will  not  re- 
sult in  that  sense  of  religion  which  Christ  sought  to 
awaken.  If  there  is  any  scope  for  fear  in  Christian- 
ity, it  is  the  fear  which  is  excited  in  the  wrongdoer 
when  his  eyes  are  opened  to  see  where  his  course  is 
leading  him — the  fear  of  becoming   what   he   now 


170  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

recognises  as  an  awful  possibility.  This  fear  may 
become  a  motive  to  a  better  life;  but  such  fear  is 
only  awakened  when  one  has  experienced  the  love 
of  God. 

It  is  a  fault  of  our  theology  that  it  does  not  en- 
quire into  the  nature  of  God's  love,  and  that  the 
term  is  supposed  to  carry  with  it  nothing  more  than 
the  emotional  sentiment  which  we  are  accustomed 
to  associate  with  affection.  And  yet  the  nature  of 
God's  love  yields  to  analysis.  Here,  again,  the  anal- 
ogy of  human  fatherhood  holds.  As  a  father's  love 
is  something  more  than  a  mere  effusion  of  sentiment, 
so  is  God's;  and  a  juster  appreciation  of  the  true 
quality  of  God's  love  will  throw  a  flood  of  light 
upon  the  central  doctrine  of  Christian  theology. 
First,  then,  we  find  that  God's  love  involves  the 
singling  out  of  the  individual,  the  recognition  of 
each  in  the  rights  of  his  personality.  To  believe  in 
God's  love  means  primarily  to  believe  that  I  am  not 
lost  in  an  indistinguishable  mass  of  humanity,  but 
that  God  has  singled  me  out,  that  God's  eye  is  ever 
upon  me,  that  my  individual  life  has,  in  his  sight,  its 
own  value.  But  it  means  more  than  this :  it  means 
that  God  sees  me  not  only  as  I  am,  but  also  as  I 
may  be,  not  only  the  actuality,  but  also  the  possi- 
bility, and  that  he  longs  to  make  that  possibility 
real.  He  recognises  the  purpose  and  the  ideal  of 
each  man's  life,  and  that  purpose  and  ideal  he  has 
taken  up  into  his  own  thought  and  purpose.  To 
have  learned  to  know  myself  the  object  of  God's 
love,   to  have  become  conscious  of  the  divine  eye 


THE   IDEA   OF    GOD.  171 

singling  me  out  and  resting  upon  me,  and  to  have 
awakened  to  the  fact  that  God  looks  upon  me  not 
only  as  I  am,  but  also  as  I  may  be,  that  God  is  ever 
comparing  me  with  my  ideal :  what  stronger  motive 
could  ever  come  into  the  life  of  man  than  this  ? 
Could  any  representation  of  future  judgment  have 
softened  the  heart  of  Zacchaeus  as  did  the  sudden 
revelation  flashed  into  his  soul  when  Jesus  singled 
him  out  in  the  crowd,  that  even  he,  the  outcast 
among  men,  was  an  object  of  care  and  love  to  Jesus  ? 
How  different  the  idea  he  must  from  that  moment 
have  had  of  his  own  life,  of  his  value  before  God. 
This  is  the  motive  that  Christianity  brings  into  the 
life  of  man :  the  appreciation  of  his  own  humanity. 
It  was  well  said  by  one  of  the  writers  of  Lux  Mundi, 
that  man  to  be  saved  must  know  not  only  that  he 
cannot  save  himself,  but  "  how  splendidly  worth 
saving  he  was."'  To  know  this;  to  understand 
that  before  the  almighty  Creator  and  Sustainer  of 
the  world  I  stand  in  the  dignity  of  my  personality, 
that  he  recognises  the  rights  that  belong  to  me  as 
one  created  in  the  likeness  of  himself,  that  God  has 
placed  before  me  possibilities  for  infinite  good;  to 
have  the  eyes  to  see  my  own  ideal  as  the  divinely 
appointed  "  might  be  "  of  my  life:  this  is  to  know 
the  love  of  God,  and  this  is  Christ's  motive  to  a 
better  life. 

It  may  be  said  that  this  motive  is  too  high  for 
hardened  sinners,  that  they  need  a  rougher  treat- 
ment to  rouse  them  to  a  sense  of  sin.     Christ,  when 

'  "  The  Preparation  in  History  for  Christ." 


172  THE    K1X(;])UM    OF    GOD. 

he  found  them  desecrating  the  temple,  did  not  talk- 
to  those  men  about  a  beautiful  ideal.  He  made  a 
scourge  of  cords  and  drove  them  out.  True.  But 
was  it  fear  that  made  those  men  go  quietly  trooping 
out  of  the  sacred  precincts,  driven  by  one  man  ? 
Not  fear,  but  shame.  It  was  because  Christ  had 
awakened  in  them  a  sense  of  the  unworthiness  of 
their  action,  that  they  did  what  no  mere  fear  would 
have  made  them  do.  Shame  is  the  sense  of  the  in- 
congruity of  our  actions  with  that  personal  worth 
which  is  ours  as  the  objects  of  God's  love.  The 
sense  of  shame  comes  often  as  the  first  step  towards 
a  better  life.  The  first  suggestion  rising  in  the  mind 
of  what  I  ought  to  be,  of  what  God  wills  me  to  be, 
awakens  the  feeling  of  shame.  I  begin  to  look  with 
suspicion,  then  with  dislike,  finally  with  aversion 
and  horror,  upon  what  I  have  done.  I  learn  to 
know  that  I  have  injured  myself.  A  new  feeling  is 
awakened — the  respect  of  self.  As  I  grow  in  know- 
ledge of  my  better  self,  I  shrink  more  and  more  from 
my  former  self.  And  so  I  learn  to  value  myself  as 
God  values  me,  and  to  know  and  aspire  to  the  life 
which  God  has  appointed  for  me.  And  while  this 
feeling  is  being  intensified,  it  becomes  every  day  more 
clear  to  me  what  the  love  of  God  means.  So,  all 
through  the  process,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end, 
it  is  the  same  divine  love,  first  awakening  the  sense 
of  shame — not,  perhaps,  without  a  rough  shaking — 
and  then  quickening  into  life  the  dormant  aspirations. 
In  the  gospels  we  look  in  vain  for  any  appeal  to  fear 
that  Christ  made.      Even  the  betrayal  of  Peter  called 


THE    IDEA    OF    GOD.  178 

from  him  only  the  rebuke  of  a  glance;  but  that 
glance  was  enough  to  bring  an  agony  of  shame  into 
Peter's  heart,  so  that  he  went  from  Christ's  presence 
and  wept  bitterly. 

As  soon  as  the  sinner  turns  to  God,  he  feels  the 
divine  love  whose  arms  are  ever  open  to  receive  him 
back.  All  fear,  that  is  incompatible  with  this  love 
of  God,  such  as  has  been  appealed  to  (more  in  the 
past  than  in  the  present)  as  a  religious  motive,  such 
as  to-day  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  forms  the 
basis  of  a  huge  ramified  system  of  compromises  with 
an  angry  God  :  all  such  fear  we,  if  we  follow  the  teach- 
ings of  Jesus,  must  rule  out  of  the  Christian  system. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  in  opposition  to  that 
theory  which  makes  righteousness  the  fundamental 
attribute  of  God,  and  to  that  which  represents  him 
as  mere  arbitrary  will,  that  God  is  to  be  conceived 
as  love.  You  think  of  God  as  love  or  you  do  not 
think  of  him  at  all.  You  think  nothing  in  God  be- 
fore his  love.  Holy  love  is  the  all-sufficient  con- 
ception of  God. 

I  have  omitted  one  factor  in  the  idea  of  God  which 
has  played  an  important  part  in  theological  systems : 
personality.  I  shall  do  no  more  than  glance  at  it, 
because  I  cannot  bring  myself  to  think  that  it  is  of 
any  practical  importance.  The  denial  of  God's  per- 
sonality, according  to  the  well-known  aphorism  of 
Spinoza  "  Omnis  determinatio  est  negatio,"  is  one 
of  those  metaphysical  subtleties  which  have  done 
much  to  confuse  theological  thought.  Mr.  John 
Fiske   in   his   Idea  of  God,    says  (p.  135)  that  "  to 


174  THE   KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

ascribe  what  we  know  as  human  personality  to  the 
infinite  Deity  straightway  lands  us  in  a  contradiction, 
since  personality  without  limits  is  inconceivable." 
But  inasmuch  as  the  human  mind  is  incapable  of 
conceiving  anything  without  limits,  as,  in  fact,  the 
nature  of  the  infinite  is  utterly  and  entirely  outside 
of  the  sphere  of  possible  human  knowledge,  it  is 
difficult  to  see  what  force  there  is  in  this  objection. 
Personality  being  the  highest  conception  of  spiritual 
power  which  the  human  mind  can  form,  the  conclu- 
sion is  irresistible  that  the  mind  would  stultify  itself 
if  it  did  not  ascribe  to  the  creator  at  least  the  per- 
fection of  the  creature.  Mr.  Fiske  does  attribute 
"  a  quasi-psychical  nature  "  to  the  Deity  and  this 
would  seem  to  be  very  much  the  nature  under  which 
any  thoughtful  Christian  conceives  God.^ 

We  have,  therefore,  nothing  to  add  to  our  defini- 
tion :  God  is  holy  love.  This  is  the  only  conception 
of  the  Supreme  Being  in  which  the  mind  comes  to 
rest.  But  we  must  go  one  step  further.  Love  is 
inconceivable  without  an  object,  just  as  pure  will 
without  an  object  of  the  will  cannot  be  imagined. 
If,  therefore,  God  is  love,  there  must  be  an  object 
of  God's  love.  This  object  of  God's  love  is  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

^  It  is  doubtless  true,  as  Mr,  Spencer  points  out,  that  we  cannot 
imagine  the  Supreme  Being  as  possessed  with  attributes  proper  to 
humanity,  such  as  consciousness,  will,  intelligence.  But  can  we  not, 
and  must  we  not,  believe  the  perfection  of  the  Deity  to  involve  all  the 
highest  attributes  of  humanity  ?  Otherwise  we  stultify  ourselves  with 
this  absurdity,  that  the  universe,  including  man,  proceeds  from  a 
being  who  is  in  his  nature  lower  than  his  works. 


THE   IDEA   OF    GOD.  175 

Here  we  come  upon  that  historic  phenomenon 
which  we  set  out  to  investigate.  We  found  that 
Christ  came  to  estabhsh  the  kingdom  of  God.  Cer- 
tain words  of  Christ  led  us  to  the  recognition  of  a 
religious  determination  of  life  withiti  that  kingdom. 
We  have  followed  the  various  steps  of  that  process, 
from  sin  to  forgiveness,  and  through  forgiveness  to 
the  eternal  life,  and  that  brought  us  to  consider 
the  idea  of  God,  in  which  all  true  thought  of  the 
Christian  life  must  centre.  And  now  we  are  brought 
to  this  conclusion :  that  the  true  conception  of  God 
as  the  God  of  love  must  recognise  as  the  object  of 
his  love  that  kingdom  of  God  which  Christ  came  to 
earth  to  establish.     This  completes  our  idea  of  God. 

The  love  of  God  for  the  kingdom  of  God  means 
that  he  takes  up  the  end  and  purpose  of  that  organi- 
sation of  men  into  his  own  thought  and  purpose. 
He  makes  its  end  and  object  his  own.  We  think  of 
God  as  love  because  we  think  of  him  as  setting  be- 
fore himself  as  his  object,  end,  and  purpose,  the 
building  up  of  the  human  race  into  the  kingdom  of 
God.  Here  we  get  a  glimpse  of  God's  comprehen- 
sive plan.  We  see  the  kingdom  of  God  in  its  incep- 
tion eighteen  hundred  years  ago.  Christ  even  then 
comprehended  its  destination ;  from  the  little  seed 
it  was  to  grow  into  a  great  tree  overshadowing  the 
earth.  And  looking  back  we  can  see  how  this  desti- 
nation has  been  in  the  process  of  realisation.  It  has 
been  a  slow  process,  but  the  principle  of  expansion 
has  never  staid  its  work.  We  know  not  by  what 
steps  the  future  will  advance  towards  a  fuller  realisa- 


1<G  THE  ki>;gdom  of  god. 

tion  of  that  kingdom,  but  we  do  know  that  this 
kingdom  of  God  is  the  key  to  human  history.  The 
destiny  of  the  world  is  bound  up  with  it.  It  has  in 
the  very  being  of  God  the  assurance  of  ultimate 
triumph.  For  to  us  God  becomes  intelligible  only 
as  we  conceive  his  love  to  have  taken  the  kingdom 
of  God  up  into  his  own  purpose.  In  the  light  of 
this  great  truth  we  can  see  how  all  tends  to  the 
advancement  of  this  kingdom  of  God.  The  material 
world  becomes  a  minister  to  the  spiritual  world  ;  the 
creation  below  man  serves  the  purposes  of  man,  and 
all  the  countless  forms  of  matter  adapted  to  the  use 
and  gratification  of  man,  exist  for  the  kingdom  of 
God,  as  a  means  of  its  realisation. 

But,  one  may  ask,  what  of  the  time  before  there 
was  any  kingdom  of  God,  before  there  was  any 
world?  It  might  be  objected  that  the  kingdom  of 
God,  being  temporal  and  still  in  the  process  of  reali- 
sation and,  therefore,  contingent,  is  not  fitted  to  be 
the  object  of  the  divine  love.  If  God  in  his  essential 
nature  is  love  and  we  cannot  conceive  of  love  with- 
out an  object,  the  object  of  God's  love  must  be  com- 
mensurate with  his  being,  it  must  be  eternal. 

This  question  brings  us  to  the  borderland  of  the 
unknowable.  We  stand  as  it  were  on  the  shore  of 
a  vast  ocean.  We  strain  our  eyes  to  catch  a  glimpse 
of  something  beyond.  We  have  some  faint  sugges- 
tions of  a  farther  shore;  driftwood  is  cast  upon  our 
strand ;  the  winds  carry  the  fragrance  of  another 
continent;  and  such  indications  allow  us  to  guess  at 
the  nature  of  the  strange  land.      So  it  is  with  our 


THE   IDEA    OF    GOD.  177 

thoughts  of  heaven  and  of  God.  As  far  as  we  need 
a  God  as  an  object  of  trust  we  can  know  him;  but 
when  the  mind  pries  further  and  seeks  to  know  him 
as  he  is,  it  can  only  reason,  cautiously  and  timidly, 
from  the  indications  we  have  to  what  seem  their 
necessary  conditions.  We  know  God  to  be  love,  we 
believe  the  object  of  his  love  to  be  his  kingdom. 
But  the  farther  we  proceed  in  our  search  into  the 
nature  of  God,  the  more  slender  grows  the  thread 
which  connects  our  speculations  with  the  concrete 
facts  of  experience. 

Bearing  in  mind  this  caution  we  may  say  in  answer 
to  the  difficulty  suggested,  that  for  us  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  indeed  an  event  in  time  ;  it  had  a  beginning 
and  will  have  a  consummation  in  time.  But  as  far  as 
we  can  understand  what  time  is,  we  must  conceive  it 
as  a  subjective  condition  of  our  knowledge,  some- 
thing inherent  in  us  as  finite  creatures.  And, 
although  God  must  stand  in  some  relation  to  time, 
yet  there  is  a  sense  in  which  God  stands  above  time. 

Eternity,"  says  Ritschl,  "  is  the  power  of  the 
spirit  over  time."  As  such,  we  ourselves  have  a 
certain  experience  of  eternity.  We  must  think  of 
God  as  free  from  the  limitations  of  time.  The  con- 
ditions of  time  in  the  realisation  of  his  kingdom  do 
not  exist  for  him.  The  kingdom  of  God,  in  its  full 
consummation,  is  from  eternity  the  object  of  the 
divine  contemplation ;  the  perfect  realisation  of 
that  kingdom  is  an  ever-present  experience  with 
God.  And,  therefore,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  an 
object  commensurate  to  the  love  of  God. 


178  THE    KIICGDOM   OF   GOD. 

Another  reflection  will  perhaps  serve  to  supple- 
ment this  train  of  thought,  or  may  be  a  substitute 
for  the  conception  of  the  eternal  significance  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  for  God.  We  have  seen  that 
Christ  is  the  type  of  that  relationship  into  which 
God  entered  with  his  followers,  that  is,  with  his 
kingdom.  The  love  of  God  for  his  kingdom  is  pre- 
figured by  the  love  of  God  for  Christ.  If  we  con- 
ceive Christ,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
as  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  the  love  of  God 
for  his  kingdom  finds  its  eternal  type  in  the  love  of 
the  Father  for  the  eternally  begotten  Son.  Then 
the  kingdom  of  God  and  Christ  are  correlated  con- 
ceptions. Then  the  life  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  a 
part  of  the  divine  life  thrown  out  from  God,  and  for 
reasons  utterly  beyond  our  ken  subjected  to  the  con- 
ditions of  time  and  space  and  so  entering  into  the 
historic  relationships  familiar  to  us. 

We  are  conscious  of  the  weakness  of  our  wings  as 
we  try  to  soar  above  the  sphere  of  experience  into 
the  realm  of  pure  realities.  But  the  mind  cannot 
abnegate  an  imperious  instinct  to  probe  its  own 
conceptions  to  the  very  last  consequences.  Harm 
is  done  when  these  speculations  are  raised  to  the 
dignity  of  finality  and  receive  the  imprimatur  of 
Christian  doctrine. 

We  come  back  to  this:  the  Christian  faith  de- 
mands that  we  conceive  God  as  one,  and  that  unity 
can  only  be  love.  We  do  not  think  God  at  all  un- 
less we  think  him  in  relation  to  his  kingdom  as 
seeking  the  realisation  of  that  kingdom's  end  and 


THE    IDEA    OF   GOD.  179 

object.  The  idea  of  God  as  a  God  of  love  for  his 
kingdom  is  such  that  the  Christian  mind  can  find 
rest  in  it,  as  will  be  seen  if  we  apply  to  it  our  ethi- 
cal and  spiritual  tests.  First,  this  idea  satisfies  the 
ethical  demands  of  our  nature.  It  avoids  the  diffi- 
culties of  both  the  other  theories ;  it  neither  assumes 
a  necessity  above  God  as  the  seat  of  the  moral  law, 
nor  does  it  make  the  moral  law  subject  to  the  arbi- 
trary w^ill  of  God.  According  to  our  theory,  good- 
ness is  inherent  in  the  nature  of  God.  For  God  and 
the  kingdom  of  God  are  inseparably  connected. 
God,  in  his  self-determination,  determines  himself 
with  reference  to  the  kingdom  of  God ;  and  as  we 
found  the  kingdom  of  God  to  be,  either  in  itself  or 
in  its  type,  the  eternal  object  of  God's  love,  it  fol- 
lows that  there  never  was  a  time  when  his  will  did 
not  realise  itself  for  the  good  of  this  kingdom ;  that 
is,  it  works  from  eternity  in  the  manner  which  we, 
from  our  point  of  view,  call  the  laws  of  goodness. 
These  laws,  therefore,  have  their  seat  in  God's 
nature,  in  such  manner  that  they  neither  stand 
above  God  nor  are  the  creatures  of  his  caprice. 
Thus  the  ethical  demands  of  our  nature  are  satisfied. 
Our  spiritual  craving  also  receives  satisfaction. 
The  God  whom  we  think  of  only  as  a  God  of  love 
is  one  whom  we  can  trust.  The  heart  comes  to 
rest,  we  are  satisfied  with  such  a  God.  We  do  not 
want  to  stand  in  dread  of  our  God,  and  we  need 
not.  The  God  of  whom  I  think  as  the  father  in  the 
parable,  or  as  the  shepherd  in  the  other  story,  allows 
me  to  look  .up  to  him   as  a  child  to  his  father,  as 


180  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

Christ  did.  This  is  the  God  who  makes  men  brave, 
the  God  who  makes  us  feel  that  the  world  is  of  little 
account  with  him  on  our  side. 

The  essential  difference  between  this  and  the 
dualistic  idea  of  God  is  that  the  latter  assumes  an 
end  and  purpose  for  which  God  exists  other  than 
the  world.  God  lives  for  his  own  glory,  his  own 
honour.  Hence  the  fatal  dualism.  Our  view  iden- 
tifies the  purpose  of  God  and  the  purpose  for  w^hich 
the  world  exists.  We  have  seen  that  God's  love 
means  the  taking  up  of  the  final  end  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  into  his  own  thought  and  purpose.  Hence, 
the  two  coincide,  are  identical.  The  consummation 
of  human  society  according  to  the  eternal  laws  of 
right:  this  is  the  end  and  object  of  God's  kingdom. 
It  is  also  God's  own  eternal  purpose.  And  there- 
fore the  progressive  realisation  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  upon  earth  is  a  fuller  and  fuller  revelation  of 
the  nature  of  God. 
^  This  truth  of  the  unity  of  purpose  of  God  and 
the  world  affords  the  final  solution  of  the  problem 
of  the  freedom  of  the  wall.  Two  seemingly  contra- 
dictory truths  are  postulated  by  religion:  man's 
dependence  upon  God  and  the  freedom  of  the  will. 

The  idea  of  the  freedom  of  the  will  has  been 
scouted  as  an  absurdity.'  But  we  may  still  be 
allowed  to  hold  that  there  is  a  difference  betw^een 
the  acts  of  volition  in  man  and  those  of  the  brute. 
That  every  act  of  the  will  has  behind  it  a  motive, 

^  Compare  John  Fiske,  Cosmic  Philosophy. 


THE    IDEA   OF   GOD.  181 

goes  without  saying.  The  will  obeys  the  strongest 
motive;  this  motive  exists  in  the  shape  of  feeling. 
But  what  determines  the  feeling  ?  This  is  the  point 
at  which  the  enquiry  into  the  freedom  of  the  will 
must  begin. 

The  freedom  of  the  will  rests  upon  the  power  of 
the  reason,  the  ability  to  balance  motives.  The 
brute  obeys  only  the  brute  instinct.  That  is  the 
lowest  motive.  Above  that  of  the  brute  instinct  is 
the  stage  of  a  calculating  selfishness.  Then  there 
is  the  stage  where  the  motives  are  subservient 
to  family  relationship.  That  is  the  first  step  on 
the  ladder  of  civilisation.  Above  that  is  the  stage 
where  the  motives  of  conduct  are  under  tribal  or 
national  influence.  Patriotism  is  the  mark  of  a 
highly  evolved  ethical  system.  But  it  is  not  the 
highest.  In  the  highest  stage  the  motives  of  action 
are  brought  under  subserviency  to  the  end  for  which 
man  was  created — the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is  only 
when  we  recognise  the  motives  which  are  correlated 
to  the  kingdom  of  God  as  those  which  rightly  gov- 
ern man's  actions,  that  we  understand  what  the 
freedom  of  the  will  is.  Only  when  man  has  raised 
himself  to  the  plane  upon  which  his  conduct  is  gov- 
erned by  reason,  or — which  is  the  same  thing — by 
considerations  of  the  ultimate  end  and  purpose  of  his 
life,  is  there  freedom  of  choice.  Every  other  set  of 
motives,  that  of  the  animal  instincts,  of  calculating 
selfishness,  of  family  or  national  interests,  involves  a 
certain  amount  of  limitation,  a  certain  bondage  of 
the  will.     The  will   must  act   in  obedience  to  the 


182  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

most  comprehensive  human  motive,  to  be  really  free. 
This  is  the  motive  corresponding  to  the  laws  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  The  freedom  of  the  will  may 
therefore  be  defined  as  the  self-determination  of  man 
according  to  the  laws  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

But,  as  we  have  seen,  this  same  kingdom  of  God 
is  the  object  of  God's  love.  The  end  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  God's  own  eternal  purpose.  It  is 
God's  object  to  effect  the  realisation  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  by  the  same  laws  in  obedience  to  which  man 
experiences  freedom.  God's  law  is  the  sphere  of 
man's  liberty.  God's  law  is  our  "  law  of  liberty." 
I  exercise  freedom  of  will  by  the  determination  of 
my  conduct  in  accordance  with  the  laws  which  repre- 
sent God's  own  purpose  for  me.  Therefore,  in 
obeying  God's  law  I  am  free,  at  the  same  time  that 
I  feel  my  dependence  upon  God.  The  apparent 
paradox  is  a  fact  of  daily  experience.  The  problem 
is  solved  when  we  recognise  the  identity  of  purpose 
between  God  and  man. 

We  began  this  enquiry  into  the  idea  of  God  by 
asking  what  nature  had  to  teach  us.  We  found 
that,  with  the  exception  of  one  delicate  hint  which 
beauty  in  nature  gives,  it  brings  before  us  rather  a 
God  who  is  cruel  and  regardless  of  the  well-being  of 
his  creatures.  We  then  examined  the  Christian  idea 
of  God.  We  had  to  reject  certain  current  ideas ;  but 
we  found  that  the  conception  of  the  Supreme  Being 
which  is  revealed  to  us  in  the  gospels  satisfies  those 
tests  by  which  we  must  judge,  the  demands  of  the 


THE    IDEA    OF   GOD.  183 

ethical  and  of  the  spiritual  nature.  The  moral 
nature  and  the  spiritual  nature  cry  out  for  a  God, 
and  the  God  revealed  by  Christ  is  the  only  God  who 
satisfies  their  longing.  The  knowledge  of  **  the 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  "  comes  to  us  in 
answer  to  what  the  poet  calls  the 

*'  Vexing,  forward  reaching  sense 
Of  some  more  noble  permanence." 

Upon  this  foundation  our  belief  in  God  stands 
firm  :  it  is  the  meeting  of  the  human  aspirations  and 
the  revelation  of  Christ.  The  one  is  the  answer  to 
the  other,  and  in  this  answer  to  human  needs  lies 
the  strength  of  Christian  conviction.  But  we  should 
altogether  fail  to  grasp  the  true  significance  of  this 
Christian  idea  of  God  if  we  thought  of  it  as  one 
which  we  are  merely  permitted  to  hold.  A  good 
many  people  seem  to  think  of  religion  very  much  as 
if  the  Christian  were  a  sort  of  spoiled  child,  who  has 
worried  his  parents  into  giving  him  a  toy  to  play 
with.  We  are  ever  fearful  lest  some  new  attack 
upon  religion  may  possibly  rob  us  of  our  God.  And 
so  we  hardly  dare  bring  it  out  into  the  light  of  day; 
we  cherish  it  in  secret,  lest  it  might  catch  the  envi- 
ous eye  of  some  bold  champion  of  that  terrible 
bugbear  of  the  modern  Christian,  "  Science,"  and 
provoke  him  to  the  attack. 

A  little  reflection  will  show  that  the  foregoing 
train  of  thought  carries  with  it  not  only  the  permis- 
sion but  the  necessity  of  the  Christian  idea  of  God. 
Not  only  may  we,  as  Christians,  think   of   God   as 


184  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

Christ  thought  of  him;  but  as  thinking,  reasoning 
beings  we  are  obhged  to  assume  the  Christian  idea 
of  God.  Consider:  what  takes  place  in  every  act 
of  reflective  thought  ?  The  astronomer  makes  his 
brain  the  centre  from  which  he  sweeps  through  the 
stellar  universe;  the  chemist  in  his  single  person 
places  himself  over  against  the  whole  material  world 
and  it  becomes  the  object  of  his  analysis;  the  his- 
torian comprehends  in  his  survey  all  life,  past  and 
present.  Underlying  these  operations  of  the  mind 
we  are  forced  to  recognise  a  fact  of  the  utmost  sig- 
nificaru:e.  This  fact  is  the  claim  of  superiority  to 
nature  which  the  human  spirit  makes.  By  nature 
is  meant  all  that  comes  under  the  law  of  causation, 
including  the  phenomena  of  human  life.  The  acts  of 
conscious  reflection  which  the  astronomer,  the  chem- 
ist, the  historian,  and  every  other  thinker  performs 
are  the  assertion  of  a  uniqueness  belonging  to  the 
human  spirit,  of  a  right  to  set  itself  up  against  all 
the  world.  They  are  the  manifestation  of  a  distin- 
guishing human  faculty,  the  power  to  objectify  the 
world.  Recognising  this  uniqueness  of  the  human 
spirit,  we  are  obliged  to  take  one  of  two  alternatives. 
Either  we  must  confess  that  we  have  no  explanation 
of  it.  But  the  mind  cannot  rest  in  this  agnosticism. 
It  must  go  forward,  if  it  is  true  to  itself.  Or  we 
must  acknowledge  that  the  only  adequate  founda- 
tion for  that  claim  of  the  individual  human  spirit  is 
the  Christian  God,  who  as  a  God  of  love  is  to  me 
the  guarantee  that  the  dignity  which  my  personality 
claims  for  itself  is  founded  in  eternal  truth. 


THE    IDEA   OF    GOD.  185 

On  this  ground,  Ritschl  criticises  Strauss's  well- 
known  figure  of  the  huge  world-machine,  with  its 
iron  teeth  and  hamnners,  to  whose  cruelty  we  are  a 
helpless  prey.  Strauss  comforts  himself  with  the 
reflection  that  the  machine  has  not  only  merciless 
wheels,  but  also  soothing  oil :  this  is  the  power  of 
habit  to  alleviate  suffering.  Of  this  figure  Ritschl 
says:  either  we  are  parts  of  the  machine;  then  we 
can  form  no  conception  of  the  whole  and.  its  work- 
ing; in  that  case  we  do  not  need  any  soothing  oil, 
if  when  we  are  worn  out  we  are  replaced  by  new 
parts.  Or  else,  men  are  distinguished  from  the 
machine  as  intelligent  onlookers,  at  the  same  time 
that  they  are  crushed  by  it:  "  Then,  surely,  it  is  no 
alleviation  and  no  comfort  to  be  sprayed  with  rancid 
oil ;  that  is,  by  the  persuasion  of  the  inevitable  neces- 
sity of  their  own  destruction  to  be  deprived  of  the 
consciousness  of  their  own  value  which  they  drew 
from  the  fact  that,  because  they  were  able  to  examine 
the  machine  and  to  have  a  knowledge  of  its  con- 
struction, they  were  superior  to  it."  The  very 
effort,  therefore,  which  the  materialist  makes  to 
demonstrate  that  man  is  on  the  same  plane  with 
nature  refutes  his  proposition.  He  could  not  make 
that  effort  did  he  not  objectify  nature.  The  very 
fact  that  he  sets  himself  up  as  a  critic  of  the  world 
and  of  himself  is  possible  only  by  the  tacit  assump- 
tion of  a  something  in  him  which  outranks  the 
material  universe,  to  whose  level  he  seeks  to  de- 
grade himself.  The  only  adequate  explanation, 
and  therefore  the  only  sufficient  foundation,  for  the 


186  THE    KIXGJJOM    OF    GOD. 

energetic  self-determination  of  man  by  intellect  and 
will  is  the  God  whose  love  for  his  children  secures 
for  them  the  full  realisation  of  their  destined  place 
in  the  future,  to  which  they  have  a  right,  but  to 
which  the  weakness  of  their  physical  nature  is  a  bar 
in  the  present. 

With  this  we  bring  our  argument  for  the  idea  of 
God  to  a  conclusion.  The  conception  of  God  which 
it  has  been  attempted  to  establish  differs  in  some 
important  particulars  from  that  which  is  ofificially 
held  and  taught.  It  does  not,  however,  differ  from 
the  ideal  which  the  pulpit  of  to-day  very  generally 
teaches.  We  must  acknowledge  a  divergence  be- 
tween our  practical  teaching  and  our  theoretical 
standards.  Our  theories  are  still  held  within  the 
traditional  bounds;  the  old  formulas  are  still  in 
vogue ;  we  render  them  a  formal  homage,  but  that 
respect  being  paid  we  proceed  to  contradict  our 
theory  by  our  practice.  A  God  who  is  primarily 
justice  and  righteousness  is  still  the  formal  assump- 
tion ;  but  we  preach  a  God  of  love. 

How  much  we  have  changed  in  this  respect  be- 
comes impressively  evident  from  a  glance  at  such 
discourses  as  those  of  Jonathan  Edwards.  The 
most  conservative  theologian  of  to-day  would  turn 
with  abhorrence  from  the  kind  of  God  depicted  in 
sermons  as  that  on  "  The  justice  of  God  in  the 
damnation  of  sinners,"  or  "  Sinners  in  the  hands  of 
an  angry  God."  A  foot-note  to  the  latter  states 
that  it  was  "  attended  with  remarkable  impressions 


THE    IDEA   OF   GOD.  187 

on  many  of  the  hearers."  We  read  the  sermon  and 
we  are  astonished.  It  would  never  enter  into  the 
mind  of  man  to-day  to  make  such  an  appeal  in  a 
Christian  pulpit.  That  sort  of  teaching  has  passed 
away.  The  burden  of  Christian  preaching  to-day  is 
a  God  of  love.' 

The  comparison  with  Jonathan  Edwards  suggests 
another  thought.  Edwards,  in  his  New  England 
rural  parish,  in  a  community  which  Lowell  said  he 
believed  was  the  most  virtuous  that  ever  existed, 
preached  a  God  of  terror.  We,  in  our  large  cities, 
oppressed  by  a  mass  of  wickedness  such  as  Edwards 
never  dreamt  of,  try  to  bring  men  to  a  consciousness 
of  a  God  of  love.  Is  it  not  because  a  deeper  know- 
ledge of  human  sin  has  given  us  a  profounder  appre- 
ciation of  that  love  which  never  tires  in  its  search 
for  the  sinner  ? 

Experience,   that  best  teacher  of    theology,   has 

taught  us  to  preach  a  God  of  love.     The  need  of 

'  Nowhere  probably  can  the  monstrous  results  of  pure  theological 
intellectualism  be  seen  so  clearly  as  in  Edwards.  Compare  such  lan- 
guage as  this  :  "  The  greater  part  of  those  who  heretofore  have  lived 
under  the  same  means  of  grace,  and  are  now  dead,  are  undoubtedly 
gone  to  hell."  Also  this  :  "  All  that  preserves  them  every  moment  is 
the  mere  arbitrary  will,  and  uncovenanted,  unobliged  forbearance,  of 
an  incensed  God."  ("  Sinners  in  the  hands  of  an  angry  God  ").  One  has 
to  read  such  discourses  as  these  to  understand  how  our  conceptions  of 
Christianity  are  altered.  A  study  of  mediaeval  art  is  also  instructive 
in  this  respect.  Take,  for  instance,  Michael  Angelo's  Last  Judgment. 
The  attitude  of  Christ,  the  terror  expressed  in  all  faces,  the  entire 
absence  of  joy  even  among  the  redeemed,  the  exclusion  of  any  sug- 
gestion of  love  ;  all  this  corresponds  with  the  wrath  and  fear  which 
the  mind  of  the  Middle  Ages  associated  with  the  judgment.  No 
modern  painter  would  so  paint  it. 


188  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

human  nature  has  turned  us  from  a  cold  intellectual- 
ism  and  has  opened  in  the  working  Church  a  greater 
depth  of  insight  to  realise  the  balm  she  has  to  heal 
bleeding  wounds,  the  food  to  still  spiritual  hunger. 
And  she  sets  before  men  a  God  whom  they  can 
trust.  But  while  she  is  doing  this  she  still  holds  to 
the  old  theory  which  contradicts  her  present  prac- 
tice. While  she  tells  men  from  the  pulpit  that  God 
is  a  God  of  love,  she  teaches  in  her  schools  that  God 
is  a  God  of  wrath.' 

This  alienation  between  practical  and  theoretical 
Christianity  cannot  but  be  disastrous  in  its  conse- 
quences. A  "  practical  Christianity  "  which  has 
not  under  it  a  foundation  of  reasoned  conviction  is 
worth  little  more  than  any  other  groundless  preju- 
dicCo  The  embers  may  glow  on  for  a  while,  but 
they  will  soon  die  out. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  this  presentation  of  the 
Christian  idea  of  God  satisfactorily  solves  every 
difficulty.  But,  founded  as  it  is  upon  the  revelation 
of  Christ,  it  produces  harmony  in  our  thoughts  and 
is  fitted  to  form  the  groundwork  of  a  strong  con- 
victon. 

'  "There  is  a  reconciliation  needed  for  which  all  devout  and  rev- 
erent men  yearn,  and  it  is  the  reconciliation  between  dogma  and 
religion." — Ian  Maclaren,  T/ie  Cure  of  Souls,  chap.  v. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST. 

When  Christian  truth  has  been  extricated  from 
the  mass  of  aUen  material  with  which  metaphysical 
reasoning  has  encumbered  it,  it  is  found  to  be  very 
simple.  The  salient  points  are :  forgiveness,  the 
eternal  life,  a  God  of  love,  the  revelation  of  Christ. 
These  are  vital  truths,  upon  which  rest  the  hope, 
the  comfort,  the  strength  of  religion.  We  have 
been  trying  to  understand  the  connection  and  the 
harmony  between  them. 

As  we  proceeded  in  our  argument,  we  have  been 
aware  of  the  fact  that  our  reasoning  has  been  based 
upon  an  assumption  which  we  have  not  verified, 
that  there  is  a  great  underlying  question  which  we 
have  not  answered.  To  that  question  we  shall  now 
return.  It  is  the  question  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
gospels. 

I  wish  here  to  recall  what  was  said  in  the  Intro- 
duction, that  no  proof,  as  commonly  understood, 
would  be  attempted.  The  task  of  the  theologian 
is  to  give  an  analysis  of  the  Christian  faith  ;  the  con- 
viction of  the  truth  must  come  from  the  answer 
which  the  facts  of  Christianity  render  to  the  re- 
ligious needs  of  man.     But   it   is  necessary  at  this 

189 


190  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

point  to  enquire  whether  the  facts  upon  which 
Christian  truth  is  based  are  trustworthy.  We  cannot 
neglect  the  historic  basis  of  Christianity.  Otherwise 
it  would  hang  in  the  air.  If  there  were  no  sufficient 
warrant  for  these  vital  truths  in  the  facts  of  history, 
we  should  have  to  say :  it  is  a  very  beautiful  picture 
of  the  imagination,  but  it  is  a  dream  and  nothing 
more.  We  cannot  eliminate  the  historic  element 
from  Christianity.  We  must  recognise  the  fact  that 
Christianity  enters  into  our  lives  through  the  means 
of  certain  actual  facts  of  human  experience. 

The  connecting  link  between  our  lives  and  the 
Christian  truth  is  the  historic  Christ.  The  know- 
ledge of  Christ  is  a  necessary  factor  in  the  Christian 
life.  God  has  appointed  him  as  the  means  to  sal- 
vation, not  because  forgiveness  must  be  wrung  from 
an  unwilling  judge,  but  because  man  could  not 
otherwise  be  brought  back  to  the  Father.  Christ's 
influence  upon  man  is  twofold :  first,  he  convinces 
man  of  sin;  secondly,  he  brings  forgiveness.  This 
influence  proceeds  from  the  record  of  Christ's  life; 
it  touches  us  through  the  knowledge  of  that  life  as 
portrayed  in  the  gospels.  Untold  multitudes  have 
traced  the  principle  of  a  new  life  in  them  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  This  fact  alone 
raises  a  presumption  in  favour  of  the  gospel  records. 
Seeing,  as  we  do,  that  Christ  has  come  as  a  new 
leaven  into  the  mass  of  humanity;  understanding, 
as  we  do,  that  the  life  of  Christian  nations,  in  all 
its  wonderful  complexity,  rests  upon  Christianity: — • 
having  before  our  minds  the  effect  which  the  life  of 


THE    PERSON   OF   CHRIST.  191 

the  one  man,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  has  produced  in  the 
world,  we  are  strongly  disposed  to  accept  the  account 
of  that  life  as  true. 

Nevertheless,  should  criticism  succeed  in  proving 
that  such  a  man  as  Jesus  never  lived,  or  that  the 
record  of  his  life  is  untrustworthy,  we  should  be 
forced  to  reconstruct  our  theories.  We  cannot  en- 
tirely spiritualise  faith.  It  is  futile  to  pretend  that 
Christianity  is  quite  independent  of  criticism.  The 
Christian  faith  does  depend  upon  certain  facts  of  our 
knowledge.  If  there  was  no  Christ,  there  can  be  no 
Christianity.  It  will,  therefore,  be  necessary  to  take 
into  consideration  the  grounds  for  believing  in  the 
historic  character  of  Christ,  and  in  doing  so  we  are 
brought  face  to  face  with  the  immense  labour  which 
this  and  preceding  generations  have  spent  upon  the 
problem. 

It  is  far  beyond  the  scope  of  this  essay  to  present 
a  history  of  modern  criticism.  It  will  be  sufficient 
to  indicate  the  drift  of  research  in  this  department 
and  to  draw  the  limits  of  what  we  may  look  upon  as 
settled. 

There  have  been  from  the  beginning  critics  of  the 
Christian  system.  But  not  until  towards  the  close 
of  the  last  century  did  biblical  criticism  become  more 
than  the  sporadic  attempts  of  individual  scholars. 
At  that  time  it  began  to  be  a  movement  of  the 
general  religious  mind.  Since  then  it  has  gone 
through  many  phases.  One  theory  after  another 
has  been  propounded,  enthusiastically  received,  and 
abandoned.      So  it  was  with  the  early  rationalistic 


192  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

attempts  to  eliminate  the  supernatural  and  pro- 
fessedly to  vindicate  the  character  of  Jesus  as  a 
great  teacher.  Then  came  the  celebrated  myth- 
theory  of  Strauss,  and  to  many  judgment  seemed 
to  have  been  pronounced  upon  Christianity.  But 
time  and  the  closer  examination  of  the  records 
proved  this  theory  untenable,  and  it  was  succeeded 
by  another. 

Aside  from  the  main  stream  of  theological  de- 
velopment stood  the  Frenchman  Renan,  who  dis- 
solved the  story  of  Jesus  into  an  oriental  romance, 
and  by  the  exquisite  charm  of  his  language  capti- 
vated many.      But  who  believes  in  Renan  to-day  ? 

Strauss  and  his  myth-theory  was  succeeded  by 
the  Tubingen  school  with  its  most  illustrious  repre- 
sentative, the  keen  Baur,  who  explained  Catholic 
Christianity  as  the  compromise  of  two  '  *  tendencies, ' ' 
the  Gentile  and  Jewish.  This  is  the  last  theory. 
Baur's  conception,  elaborated  by  a  host  of  able  suc- 
cessors, for  a  long  time  fascinated  Christian  thinkers. 
Its  influence  has  not  yet  altogether  died  out.  But 
as  a  theory  it  has  been  given  up.  It  has  not  stood 
the  test  of  criticism.'  The  minute  investigations 
into  the  text  and  history  of  the  gospels  have  moved 
the  dates  of  their  composition  so  much  higher  up, 

*  "  The  magnificent  attempt  of  Baur  to  explain  Catholicism  as  a 
product  of  the  opposition  and  the  neutralisation  of  Jewish  and  Gen- 
tile Christianity  (which  Baur  identifies  with  Paulinism)  deals  with 
two  factors,  of  which  one  had  no  significance  whatever  and  the  other 
only  an  indirect  significance  for  the  formation  of  the  Catholic 
Church." — Harnack,  Dogmengeschichte,  vol.  i.,  page  277  (third  edi- 
tion). 


THE    PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  198 

that  the  theory  of  a  prolonged  conflict  between  two 
tendencies  "   within  the  church  antecedent  to  the 
writing  of  our  present  gospels  must  be  abandoned. 

In  its  turn  the  "  tendency  "  theory  has  given 
place  to  another  school.  The  day  of  "  theories  " 
is  past.  The  present  generation  of  scholars  is  de- 
voting its  energies  to  the  critical  investigation  of  the 
biblical  records.  The  Tubingen  school  has  been 
succeeded  by  the  present  "  critical  school." 

It  is  to  the  labours  of  those  who  are  subjecting 
the  Christian  documents  to  an  impartial  scrutiny 
that  we  owe  the  reconstruction  of  the  historic  life 
of  Christ.  Underlying  such  works  as  the  two  latest 
lives  of  Christ,  by  Weiss  and  Beyschlag,  there  is  a 
mass  of  painstaking,  minute,  accurate  scholarship, 
which  scans  every  word  of  the  record  with  the  ut- 
most care.'  It  is  this  work  which  is  teaching  us  to 
know  Jesus,  not  as  the  stereotype  shadow  of  a  man 
existing  in  an  impossible  spectre-world,  but  as  he 
lived,  thought,  spoke,  and  acted.  As  a  picture 
painted  by  a  great  artist  differs  from  the  conven- 
tional outlines  of  an  heraldic  figure,  so  the  life  of 
Christ  as  we  know  it  now  differs  from  the  conven- 
tional conception  of  tradition.  We  have  had  to  give 
up  many  things  and  some  things  which  perhaps  were 
dear  to  Christian  hearts.  Some  points  are  still 
undecided.  But  we  may  rest  assured  that  the  main 
features  of  the  unique  picture  drawn  in  our  gospels 
are  true.  All  that  we  require  for  our  faith  is  firm. 
The  historic  Jesus  has  stood  the  test  of  the  most 

'  Compare  such  works  as  Weiss's  MatthcEus  and  Marcus. 
13 


19-i  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

searching  criticism.'  We  need  have  no  fear  lest  we 
have  built  our  religion  upon  an  unreality.  The 
scholars  who  have  devoted  their  energies  to  an  ex- 
amination of  the  biblical  records  claim  our  grati- 
tude. The  battle  has  been  fought ;  the  smoke  has 
not  quite  cleared  away.  But  to-day  the  thoughtful 
Christian  stands  firmer  in  his  faith  because  the  issue 
has  been  faced.' 

The  question  of  the  supernatural  forms  a  separate 
line  of  investigation  in  the  historical  reconstruction 
of  the  life  of  Christ.  It  was  the  fault  of  the  old 
conception  that  it  found  the  entire  significance  of 
Christ's  life  in  the  miraculous.  Jesus  was  nothing 
more  than  the  conventional  figure  of  a  man.  The 
one  element  in  his  life  in  which  religious  interest 
centred  was  the  supernatural.  It  is  undeniable  that 
we  have  passed  beyond  that  view.  We  are  con- 
scious of  a  decided  change  in  the  direction  of  our 
religious  interest.  That  change,  so  far  as  the  life  of 
Jesus  is  concerned,  is  the  appreciation  we  have 
learned  to  give  to  his  character.  We  now  see  in  his 
life,  not  a  tale  of  magic  powers,  but  rather  the  ex- 

'  The  Dutch  school,  which  has  gone  so  far  as  to  deny  the  existence 
of  Jesus  as  an  historic  character,  has  failed  to  establish  a  claim  to 
attention  on  the  part  of  serious  and  sober  criticism. 

Prof.  Harnack,  in  the  often-quoted  passages  of  his  Chronologie, 
makes  outspoken  acknowledgment  of  the  retrograde  tendency  of 
criticism. 

^  Theological  bitterness  and  that  weakness  of  faith  which  would 
put  a  stop  to  investigation  have  unfortunately  not  yet  received  the 
stigma  of  sin,  which  in  the  sight  of  God  must  attach  to  them. 


THE    PERSON   OF    CHRIST.  195 

hibition  of  a  human  sublimity  which  makes  him 
unique  among  men,  of  that  beauty  which  wrung 
from  the  unbeHever  Renan  the  eloquent  tribute 
at  the  close  of  his  Life  of  Jesus.'  Our  perspective 
is  altered.  The  human  and  spiritual  claim  equal 
rights  with  the  divine  and  supernatural. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  those  who  are  so 
much  impressed  with  the  moral  grandeur  of  Christ's 
life,  that  they  have  pushed  the  miraculous  aside  as- 
unessential.  At  the  one  end  of  the  scale  we  have 
the  materialisation  of  religion,  where  the  ethical  is 
nothing,  the  miracle  everything,  and  religion  be- 
comes superstition.  At  the  other  end  is  the  ex- 
treme spiritualisation  of  Christianity.  Here  the  ten- 
dency is  to  abstract  religion  from  physical  conditions. 
Exclusive  devotion  to  the  spiritual  makes  us  over- 
look the  sternness  of  the  physical  law,  and  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  supernatural  in  Christianity  becomes 
eliminated.  In  weak  minds  this  tendency  runs  into 
a  vague  sentimentalism,  a  feeling  with  no  particular 
contents;  such  people  simply  "  feel  religious."  In 
strong  minds  it  often  goes  with  a  pronounced  faith 
in  a  present  God,  a  sustaining  trust  in  Providence. 

But  this  sort  of  spiritualised  faith  is  dangerous. 
Its  fault  is  that  it  fails  to  realise  the  nature  and  ob- 
ject of  Christianity,  and  therefore  deceives  itself  with 

'  "  Mais  quels  que  puissant  etre  les  phenomenes  inattendus  de 
I'avenir,  Jesus  ne  sera  pas  surpasse.  Son  culte  se  rajeunira  sans 
cesse  :  sa  legende  provoquera  des  larmes  sans  fin  ;  ses  souffrances 
attendriront  les  meilleurs  coeurs  ;  tous  les  siecles  proclameront  qu'en- 
tre  les  fils  des  hommes,  il  n'en  est  pas  ne  de  plus  grand  que  Jesus." 
Closing  sentence. 


196  THE    KINGDOM    OF    OOD. 

the  pretension  of  being  above  the  physical.  We  are, 
as  human  beings,  subject  to  physical  limitations,  and 
it  is  on  account  of  these  very  limitations  that  we 
need  a  God.  If  it  were  not  that  I  feel  the  stress  of 
that  contradiction  in  my  own  being:  the  spirit  with 
its  aspirations  for  the  highest  freedom  walled  up  and 
hemmed  in  by  this  "  baffling  and  perverting  carnal 
mesh," — if  it  were  not  for  that  contradiction  between 
the  spiritual  and  the  physical  in  me,  I  should  not 
want  a  God.  Therefore,  to  ignore  the  physical  is 
absurd.  If  I  am  ever  to  know  again  that  being 
whose  body  I  have  seen  lowered  into  the  earth,  now 
no  more  than  a  mass  of  dead  matter  like  the  stones 
and  the  earth  around  it,  then  there  must  be  some- 
where a  very  different  world  from  this.  There  must 
be  laws  of  which  we  can  form  no  conception ;  there 
is  a  secret  now  closely  veiled,  when  it  is  revealed  a 
new  light  will  come  over  the  world.  We  may  sup- 
press, but  we  cannot  eradicate,  the  craving  for  the 
supernatural.  Why  are  men  so  afraid  of  that  word  ? 
Science  may  have  its  own  technical  reasons  for  avoid- 
ing it ;  but  for  us  it  seems  to  express,  just  as  it 
always  did,  that  something  which  is  beyond  our  ken, 
above  the  natural.  The  attempts  to  explain  the 
supernatural  in  terms  of  the  natural  seem  very  like 
child's-play.  It  goes  without  saying  that  the  super- 
natural is  not  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God ;  but  it  is 
equally  evident  that  no  natural  law  has  been  discov- 
ered which  will  explain  the  rising  from  the  dead. 
We  think,  sometimes,  that  we  have  explained  a  thing 
when  we  have  shown  that  it  is  not  something  else; 


THE    PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  197 

but  we  may  only  have  corrected  an  error  or  put  into 
accurate  language  something  that  everybody  knew 
before.  So  it  is  in  this  case.  The  human  mind  has 
accomplished  much,  so  much,  tha^  at  times  we  think 
we  can  achieve  the  impossible ;  but  it  is  nevertheless 
a  fact,  that  the  mystery  of  life  is  no  nearer  an  ex- 
planation than  it  was  in  the  days  of  Abraham. 

It  is  this  mystery  of  life  which  we  long  to  pierce. 
Is  there  any  other  than  this  material  universe  that 
we  know  ?  Is  there  nowhere  a  point  of  transition 
from  the  spiritual  to  the  natural  ?  Has  the  God  to 
whom  we  look  up  nowhere  proved  his  power  over 
the  physical  ?  This  is  the  intellectual  element  in 
that  aspiration  which  is  innate  in  human  nature. 
We  find  that  Christianity  offers  an  answer  to  these 
questions.  This  answer  is  in  the  miraculous  element 
of  our  gospels. 

Doubtless,  we  must  be  careful  to  give  no  more 
than  its  due  weight  to  the  miraculous.  Let  us, 
therefore,  consider  the  supernatural  elements  of  the 
gospels.  Christ's  life  is  full  of  the  supernatural.  It 
may  be  questioned  whether  some  of  the  miracles  of 
Jesus  do  not  receive  an  adequate  and  more  satisfac- 
tory explanation  on  a  natural  hypothesis.  The 
question  of  motive  must  be  given  its  weight.  This 
applies  to  such  stories  as  that  of  the  turning  of  water 
into  wine,  and  the  feeding  of  the  multitude.  It  is 
no  derogation  to  the  gospel  narrative  to  allow  single 
cases  like  these  to  remain  open  questions.  Further- 
more, the  minute  examination  and  comparison  of 
the  synoptic  gospels  reveals  an  enlarging  tendency 


198  THE    KlXGDO:\r   OF   aoD. 

in  the  later  in  comparison  with  the  earHer  version. 
The  story  in  several  cases  is  amplified  by  the  later 
writer.  This  is  true  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  where 
the  vision  of  the  dove  in  the  oricfinal  account  is  made 
into  an  actual  jDhysical  occurrence  in  St.  Luke. 
Nevertheless,  making  all  allowances  for  a  tendency 
to  amplification  and  to  supernatural  explanation,  it 
is  impossible  to  eradicate  the  miraculous  from  the 
story  of  Jesus.  Take  as  an  instance  the  account  of 
the  healing  of  the  paralytic  (  St.  Mark,  ii.).  Either 
to  explain  away  the  miracle,  or  to  hold  that  the 
story  is  a  pure  invention,  or  to  disentangle  the  miracu- 
lous and  reject  it  as  a  later  addition :  any  of  these 
theories  presents  most  serious  psychological  ob- 
stacles. And  if  the  attempt  is  extended  to  all  the 
miraculous  accounts  in  the  gospels,  these  difficulties 
become  insuperable.  The  miracles  remain  as  an  in- 
tegral part  of  the  gospel  narrative. 

I  am  by  no  means  attempting  to  prove  the 
miracles.  That  is  impossible,  and  the  faith  that 
rests  upon  the  miraculous  in  the  story  of  Christ  will 
prove  a  failure.  All  we  can  show  is  that  the  evi- 
dence in  favour  of  the  miraculous  is  reasonable,  and 
that  it  is  difficult  to  explain  away.  The  reasons 
which  induce  us  to  accept  that  evidence  as  sufficient 
are  religious,  not  historical.  This  applies  to  the 
crown  of  all  miracles:  the  resurrection.  The  his- 
toric evidence  for  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  of  the 
strongest.  True,  it  is  not  convincing,  for  many 
have  refused  to  accept  it.  But  it  is  quite  sufficient 
for  the  historic  basis  of  supernatural  religion,  that 


THE    PEKSOX    OF    CHRIST.  199 

the  story  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  supported 
by  evidence  which  the  candid  student  must  recog- 
nise as  strong,  that  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  the 
narrative  upon  any  theory  other  than  the  truth  of 
the  fact. 

The  case  is  somewhat  different  with  that  other 
article  of  our  creed  :  the  Virgin-birth.  The  reveren- 
tial student  is  reluctant  to  turn  the  eye  of  criticism 
upon  this  article  of  the  faith;  but  it  has  become  an 
object  of  dispute,  and  it  would  be  cowardice,  for 
which  we  could  not  answer  to  God,  to  turn  away 
from  any  serious  question.  First,  then,  it  must  be 
frankly  acknowledged  that  the  virgin-birth  stands 
upon  no  such  historic  basis  as  the  resurrection.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  enter  into  details.  The  candid 
student  must  concede  that,  compared  with  the 
strength  of  the  evidence  for  the  rising  of  Christ  from 
the  dead,  that  for  the  virgin-birth  is  limited.  The 
fact  that  this  belief  was  current  in  the  very  earliest 
time,  when  those  were  living  who  might  have  con- 
tradicted it,  and  that  it  remained  uncontradicted, 
would  be  accepted  as  good  evidence  of  an  ordinary 
occurrence.  The  magnitude  of  the  fact  to  be 
proved  and  a  comparison  with  the  testimony  to  the 
truth  of  the  other  great  miracle  make  us  wish  for 
stronger  evidence. 

On  the  other  hand,  even  those  who  are  most 
keenly  aware  of  the  historical  difficulty  would  be 
reluctant  to  part  with  this  dogma.  The  Church 
through  all  these  ages  has  accepted  it.  It  would 
leave  us  with  a  sense  of  incompleteness,  of  inade- 


200  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

quacy,  if  we  had  to  give  up  our  belief  that  the  en- 
trance of  Christianity  into  the  world  was  without 
some  signal  manifestation  of  God's  power.  This  is 
more  true  to-day  than  it  ever  was,  because  we  under- 
stand the  transcendent  significance  of  Christianity 
to  the  world  as  it  was  never  understood  before, 
while  at  the  same  time  Christianity  is  seen  more 
and  more  to  be  centred  in  Christ.  We  are,  therefore, 
intellectually  predisposed  to  accept  an  account  of  the 
beginning  of  Christianity  which  should  break  through 
the  ordinary  chain  of  events. 

While,  therefore,  we  consider  that  we  have  suffi- 
cient grounds  for  accepting  this  article  of  faith,  we 
may  not  conceal  from  ourselves  that  the  belief  in 
the  virgin-birth  rests  upon  a  different  basis  from  the 
faith  in  the  resurrection.  The  latter  stands  upon  its 
own  strong  evidence.  We  speak  of  "  the  gospel  of 
the  resurrection,"  because  it  is  the  story  of  a  risen 
Christ  which  through  all  the  ages  has  touched  men's 
hearts.  The  article  of  the  virgin-birth  on  the  other 
hand  is  in  the  nature  of  a  corollary  to  the  faith. 
We  reason  back  to  it  from  the  accepted  facts  of 
Christ's  life.  It  is  a  conclusion  of  which  the  major 
premise  is  the  significance  of  the  historic  Christ,  the 
minor  premise  the  story  in  the  first  chapters  of  St. 
Luke.  We,  therefore,  accept  the  definition  which 
the  Church  has  in  all  ages  acknowledged.  But  not 
even  the  most  uncompromising  champion  of  "  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  in  its  literal  in- 
terpretation, can  fail  to  appreciate  the  difference 
between   the  assent  which  we  give  to  the  article 


THE    PERSON   OF   CHRIST.  201 

conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,"  and  the  triumphant  conviction  with  which 
we  profess:  "  The  third  day  he  rose  again  from  the 
dead." 

The  question  of  the  miraculous  element  in  the 
gospels  has  been  obscured  because  the  belief  in 
miracle  has  been  held  to  be  the  substance  of  the 
faith.  Christian  faith  was  made  synonymous  with 
the  belief  in  the  supernatural.  Christ  made  faith  to 
mean  either  trust  in  God  or  belief  in  himself,  and 
when  he  said  "  believe  in  me,"  "  come  to  me,"  he 
did  not  primarily  imply  belief  in  the  supernatural 
facts  of  his  life ;  and  when  he  did  include  those  facts, 
as  in  the  last  chapters  of  St.  John,  he  included  them 
only  as  an  element  of  the  faith,  which  was  to  be  far 
more  than  an  intellectual  belief  in  his  divinity.  The 
substance  of  the  Christian  faith  is  the  acceptation  of 
Christ  as  the  revelation  of  God.  It  is  only  secon- 
darily, when  we  reflect  upon  the  faith,  that  the 
supernatural  enters  into  it  as  an  element. 

The  supernatural  is  not,  then,  the  faith  itself;  but 
it  undoubtedly  is  an  element  in  our  faith.  In  the 
trust  which  we  bestow  upon  Christ  and  upon  the 
God  whom  he  revealed,  there  is  always  present  an 
undercurrent  of  feeling  which  acknowledges  his 
power  over  the  physical  world,  because  Christ  ex- 
erted that  power  on  earth.  The  story  of  the  resur- 
rection makes  it  easier  for  us  to  believe.  So  it  has 
always  been.  It  was  by  a  true  instinct  that  the 
apostles  felt  that  first  and  foremost  they  must  be 
''  witnesses  of  the  resurrection,"     St.  Paul  gives  ex- 


202  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

pression  to  a  genuine  Christian  experience,  when  he 
says:  **  If  in  this  life  only  we  have  hope  in  Christ, 
we  are  of  all  men  most  miserable  "  (i  Cor.  xv.  19). 
Therefore,  the  spirtual  trust  in  Christ  and  the  belief 
in  the  supernatural  have  always  gone  together  and 
always  will  go  together  in  inseparable  union.  In 
the  normal,  healthy  Christian  faith  there  is  an  ele- 
ment of  the  supernatural.* 

I  have  spoken,  in  another  connection,  of  stages  in 
the  growth  of  faith.  We  found  that  the  Christian's 
faith  develops,  and  in  the  finished  flower  is  some- 
thing far  different  from  that  which  it  was  in  the  bud. 
So  it  is  with  our  belief  in  Christ.  As  we  are  first 
brought  under  the  influence  of  his  life,  our  attitude 
is  that  of  the  wanderer  who  has  gone  astray  and  has 
found  a  guide;  he  gives  himself  up  to  his  guidance 
without  asking  many  questions.  The  first  faith  in 
Christ  is  an  unquestioning  confidence.  He  who  has 
felt  the  sweetness  and  the  majesty  in  the  life  of  Jesus 
gives  up  his  heart  to  him;  he  admits  a  new  spiritual 
influence  into  his  life.  He  does  not  begin  by  asking 
himself,  Who  was  Jesus  ?  but  by  yielding  himself  to 
the  influence  of  Jesus.  There  is  in  this  initial  stage 
no  conscious  assent  to  any  doctrine  of  Christ.  But 
gradually  the  urgency  of  enquiring  thought  makes 
itself   felt.     The   intellectual   is  closely   interwoven 

*  "This  conclusion  (the  supernatural  power  of  Christ)  belongs  in 
itself  to  the  sphere  of  religious  faith :  but  rarely  has  there  been  a 
strong  faith  which  has  not  drawn  it."  Harnack,  Dogmengeschichte, 
vol,  i.,  J).  64,  note  (third  edition). 


THE    PERSON    OF    CHRIST.  203 

with  the  spiritual.  We  cannot  in  the  long  run  trust 
where  we  do  not  in  some  measure  understand.  The 
more  we  feel  the  moral  significance  of  Christ,  the 
more  urgent  becomes  the  necessity  of  assigning  to 
him  his  place  in  the  universe.  Who,  we  are  driven 
to  ask,  was  that  person  who  has  exerted  this  influ- 
ence upon  the  heart  of  man  and  the  destinies  of  the 
race  ?      Was  Jic  more  tJian  vian  ? 

This  question  receives  its  answer  as  we  learn  to 
understand  more  fully  the  inner  life  of  Jesus.  The 
*'  life  of  Christ  "  has  become  a  separate  discipline 
in  theological  study,  and  wonderful  progress  has 
been  made  towards  a  real  understanding  of  that  life 
commensurate  with  what  we  demand  in  the  biog- 
raphy of  any  great  character.  A  mere  catalogue  of 
events  in  their  probable  sequence,  with  an  inventory 
of  the  words  of  Christ,  is  not  sufficient.  Even  the 
illumination  of  the  text  from  geographical,  historical 
and  archaeological  sources  does  not  touch  the  real 
interest  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  We  seek  to  know  the 
inner  connection  of  events.  We  try  to  understand 
the  dramatic  development  of  the  life,  from  the  enthu- 
siastic beginning,  through  the  growing  opposition, 
to  the  climax  at  the  feeding  of  the  masses;  the  in- 
creasing devotion  to  the  disciples  as  the  hostility  of 
the  people  increased  ;  and  then  the  hurrying  forward 
to  the  catastrophe.  We  understand  the  words  of 
Christ  no  longer  as  oracles  against  a  background 
of  eternity,  but  as  discourses  spoken  to  living  men, 
upon  questions  which  were  burning  issues  to  Christ 
himself.     The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  not  a  Chris- 


204  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

tian  Magna  Charta  for  all  times,  uttered  by  Christ 
for  the  vast  congregation  of  all  generations  supposed 
to  have  been  in  his  mind  at  the  time ;  its  significance 
to  us  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is  the  document  in  which 
is  recorded  the  answer  Jesus  made  to  the  most  urgent 
question  which  confronted  him  in  the  course  of  his 
ministry — the  question  of  his  attitude  towards  the 
law.  This  is  one  illustration  of  that  deeper  insight 
which  it  is  to-day  sought  to  gain  into  the  life  of 
Jesus.  We  try  to  understand  Jesus  in  his  relations 
to  the  Pharisees,  to  his  disciples,  to  the  people ;  so 
also,  his  position  in  regard  to  the  national  aspira- 
tions ;  and  finally,  we  endeavour  to  trace  his  own 
inner  development,  the  life  of  the  soul  in  its  inner 
workings.  All  these  elements  are  a  part  of  that  vivid 
sense  of  real  development  in  the  life  of  Christ  which 
makes  his  story  so  much  more  human  on  the  one 
hand,  but  which  at  the  same  time  is  giving  us  an  in- 
creasing appreciation  of  that  which  is  more  than 
human.  For  this  is  what  that  deeper  study  of  the 
life  of  Jesus  ,leads  us  to.  It  is  one  thing  to  render 
an  homage  to  a  being  whom  we  conceive  to  have 
lived  a  sort  of  spectral  life  somewhere  midway  be- 
tween humanity  and  divinity:  that  homage  is  not 
much  different  from  the  worship  given  to  idols.  It  is 
a  very  different  thing  to  render  the  heart's  adoration 
to  one  whom  we  have  learned  to  appreciate  as  the 
perfection  of  humanity,  but  whom  for  that  very 
reason  we  are  forced  to  acknowledge  as  more  than 
man. 


THE    PERSON   OF   CHRIST.  205 

I  may  here  emphasise  two  principles  as  essential 
requisites  for  the  better  understanding  of  the  life 
of  Jesus.  First,  the  radical  point  of  difference  be- 
tween our  estimate  of  the  life  of  Christ  to-day  and 
that  which  it  is  superseding  is  this:  Christ  was  wont 
to  be  regarded  only  for  what  he  achieved  for  Juan  ; 
we  are  learning  to  understand  Christ  primarily  for 
what  he  achieved  for  himself,  and  from  the  value  of 
his  life  for  himself  is  deduced  his  value  for  others. 
Our  point  of  view  is  changed.  Consider  that  re- 
markable and  seemingly  incomprehensible  utterance 
spoken  by  Christ  to  the  man  who  addressed  him. 

Good  Master,  what  good  thing  shall  I  do  that  I 
may  have  eternal  life  ?  "  Jesus  answered:  "  Why 
callest  thou  me  good  ?  there  is  none  good  but  one, 
that  is,  God."  (St.  Matt.  xix.  17.)  We  cannot 
understand  these  words  otherwise  than  as  spoken 
from  the  consciousness  of  the  task  which  was  com- 
mitted to  him,  which  he  must  finish  before  he  could 
claim  the  final  approval  of  God.  It  was  his  mission, 
his  work,  of  which  Christ  spoke  elsewhere:  "  My 
meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  and  to 
finish  his  work  "  (St.  John,  iv.  34),  and  when  he  had 
accomplished  it:  "I  have  finished  the  work  which 
thou  gavest  me  to  do  "  (St.  John,  xvii.  4).  Christ 
had  his  life-work  as  other  men  have  theirs.  We 
have  come  to  speak  much  of  Christ's  "  mission  "  or 
his  "  vocation,"  and  rightly.  For  such  expressions 
carry  with  them  this  meaning,  that  Christ,  in  re- 
ceiving the  Messiahship,  assumed  a  responsibility 
for  his  own  personal  life.      It  was  not  that  he  was  all 


206  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

the  time  looking  away  from  himself  to  others,  but 
that  the  solution  of  his  own  problem,  the  consistent 
carrying  out  of  the  will  of  God  in  his  own  life,  the 
maintaining  of  himself  in  the  position  of  the  "  Son 
of  God,"  was  Christ's  nearest  object.  And  only  so 
far  as  he  was  faithful  to  the  task  committed  to  him, 
only  so  far  as  he  carried  to  a  successful  issue  the 
commission  to  which  he  was  divinely  ordained,  only 
so  far  as  the  problem  of  his  own  life  was  solved, 
could  the  benefits  of  his  work  flow  into  the  lives  of 
others.  The  self-determination  of  Jesus'  life  accord- 
ing to  its  own  value :  this  is  the  point  of  view  from 
which  we  are  learning  to  understand  him.  If  Jesus 
is  the  world's  high-priest,  his  priesthood  has  its  pri- 
mary significance  for  himself.  He  was  high-priest 
for  himself  in  that  he  lived  his  life  of  communion 
with  God,  and  only  through  the  satisfaction  of  the 
demands  of  his  own  personal  life  could  he  lead  others 
into  that  same  communion. 

The  second  point  is  the  correction  of  an  error  to 
which  is  due  a  certain  dualistic  conception  of  Christ's 
life.  This  is  the  dissociation  of  Christ's  death  from 
his  life.  Theological  subtlety  has  been  busy  in 
drawing  distinctions.  The  logical  exigency  of  the 
plan  of  salvation,  conceived  according  to  the  analogy 
of  legal  procedure,  seemed  to  require  the  disintegra- 
tion of  Christ's  work  into  separate  elements.  While 
we  have  quite  generally  dropped  some  of  these  dis- 
tinctions,— as  the  distinction  between  the  passive 
submission  of  Christ  to  satisfy  the  punitive  demands 
of  the  law,  and  his  active  obedience  as  the  foundation 


THE    PERSOX    OF    CHRIST.  207 

of  his  vicarious  merit  in  our  behalf — the  separation 
is  still  made  between  his  active  life  and  the  efficacy 
of  his  sacrifice  upon  the  cross.  The  language  of  St. 
Paul  no  doubt  gives  colour  to  this  distinction ;  we 
recall  such  phrases  as:  **  reconciled  to  God  by  the 
death  of  his  Son,"  and  the  frequent  references  to 
the  "  cross  of  Christ  "  ; — it  is  also  true  that  the  belief 
in  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  death  is  enshrined  in  our 
liturgy  and  hymns.  But  if  this  efficacy  is  to  be 
understood  in  the  sense,  which  is  popularly  ac- 
cepted, of  a  separate  efficacy,  apart  from  the  life,  as 
the  efficacy  of  a  material  sacrifice  isolated  from  the 
moral  acts  of  his  life,  to  be  interpreted  according  to 
the  principles  of  the  Hebrew  ritual;  if  the  mere  ex- 
tinction of  life  upon  the  cross,  in  close  analogy  with 
the  slaughter  of  animals  at  the  sacrifice  in  the  tem- 
ple, is  the  sacrifice  to  which  we  look  as  the  founda- 
tion of  our  Christian  hope;  if  to  this  one  act  is  to  be 
attributed  the  overwhelming  significance  that  is 
popularly  given  to  it :  we  are  impelled  to  ask.  Why, 
then,  did  not  Christ  give  distinct  expression  to  a 
view  of  himself  which  on  this  theory  is  of  such 
transcendent  importance  ?  It  is  not  denied  that 
this  view  may  be  extracted  from  certain  sayings  of 
Christ,  such  as:  **  I,  when  I  am  lifted  up,  will  draw 
all  men  unto  me,"  "The  Son  of  man  came  not  to 
be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his 
life  a  ransom  for  many,"  and  "  This  is  my  blood  of 
the  new  testament,  which  is  shed  for  many."  But 
this  interpretation  is  not  the  natural  explanation  of 
the  words  of  Christ,  it  is  rather  read  into  them  from 


208  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

a  preconceived  theological  opinion  whose  origin  is 
to  be  sought  elsewhere. 

Furthermore,  we  are  led  to  ask  ourselves  another 
question:  Wherein  consists  the  efificacy  of  Christ's 
act  ?  Here  we  come  to  a  parting  of  the  ways.  We 
must  mark  distinctly  the  divergence  of  the  two  an- 
swers that  may  be  given,  a  divergence  which  is  too 
often  blurred  over,  to  the  great  detriment  of  clear 
theological  thought.  I  refer  to  the  distinction 
already  hinted  at,  between  the  sacrifice  as  a  mere 
physical  act,  the  killing  of  the  victim,  and  the  sacri- 
fice as  an  act  of  moral  submission  to  the  will  of  God. 
The  first  has  its  origin  in  materialistic  conceptions 
of  the  Deity,  who  is  supposed  to  be  gratified  by  the 
blood  flowing  from  the  victim  on  the  altar.  Accord- 
ing to  this  theory,  the  willingness  or  unwillingness 
of  the  victim  is  a  matter  of  indifference.  The  value 
of  the  sacrifice  depends  upon  the  value  of  the  vic- 
tim ;  a  costly  animal  is  a  more  efficacious  sacrifice 
than  a  poor  one,  a  perfect  than  an  imperfect  one. 
In  the  case  of  Christ's  sacrifice  it  was  the  divinity 
that  gave  to  the  act  its  value.  This  value  was  purely 
material ;  it  was  simply  the  stamp  of  a  greater  effi- 
cacy; as  a  gold  coin  is  worth  more  than  silver,  so 
the  God-victim  is  worth  more  than  a  man-victim 
would  be.  The  conception  of  the  death  of  Christ 
under  this  theory  moves  altogether  within  physical 
and  materialistic  limits.  But,  we  are  forced  to  ask, 
what  sort  of  a  God  is  it  who  delights  in  the  mere 
extinction  of  life,  the  agonies  of  the  death-struggle, 
the  flowing  of  the  blood  ^     It  is  impossible,  when 


'JMIK    PERSOX   OF    CHRIST.  209 

the  true  bearings  of  this  theory  are  held  before  the 
mind  and  when  it  is  traced  in  its  antecedents  and  to 
its  consequences, not  to  see  how  incompatible  the  idea 
of  a  material  sacrifice  is  with  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  a  spiritual  God.  Few,  therefore,  will  be  found 
who  hold  this  doctrine  in  its  purity.  There  is  gen- 
erally an  underlying  consciousness  that  the  value  of 
Christ's  sacrifice  was  determined  by  his  submission. 
According  to  the  idea  which  St.  Paul  expresses,  he 
"  humbled  himself  and  became  obedient  unto  death." 
Here  the  moral  quality  in  the  act  comes  into  play. 
But  we  frequently  fail  to  realise  that  with  this 
admission  an  altogether  new  and  different  face 
is  put  upon  the  act  of  Christ.  This  theory  is  ex- 
clusive of  the  other.  It  is  no  longer  the  physical 
act  of  Jesus  which  is  pleasing  to  God,  which  formed 
the  "  sacrifice  "  to  which  we  refer  the  salvation  of 
man. 

How,  then,  can  the  sacrificial  value  of  Christ's 
obedience  be  confined  to  his  death  ?  Where  did 
that  value  begin  ?  On  the  cross  ?  or  with  the  crown 
of  thorns  ?  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  ?  Where, 
in  other  words,  shall  we  draw  the  line  at  which 
Christ's  moral  submission  begins  to  have  the  value 
of  sacrifice  which  before  it  had  not  ?  Christ  certainly 
suffered  before  the  cross  and  before  Gethsemane ; 
and  the  suffering  which  he  underwent  throughout 
the  course  of  his  ministry  came  to  him  through  the 
same  cause  as  that  upon  the  cross :  namely,  his  obe- 
dience to  the  divine  will.      It  is  clear  that  we  shall 

involve  ourselves  in  inextricable  difficulties,  if,  hav- 

14 


210  THE    KIXGDOM   OF   GOD. 

ing  accepted  the  moral  value  of  Christ's  sufferings, 
we  endeavour  to  maintain  the  distinction  between 
the  sufferings  of  his  death  and  those  of  his  life.  It 
is  true  that  the  sufferings  and  the  obedience  reached 
their  climax  on  the  cross ;  and  this  very  simple  con- 
sideration will  explain  those  references  in  St.  Paul's 
writings  in  which  he  seems  to  ascribe  exclusive 
virtue  to  the  death  upon  the  cross,  as  well  as  the 
liturgical  expressions  to  the  same  effect.  We  still 
speak  of  the  cross  of  Christ  as  the  great  act  of  sacri- 
fice, and  rightly.  But  it  need  not  be  implied  in  that 
phrase  that  the  death  and  its  suffering  had  an  efficacy 
apart  from  the  life ;  we  mean  rather  that  in  the  death 
upon  the  cross  there  is  brought  to  the  culminating 
point,  and  we  see  in  it  an  emblem  of,  that  principle 
which  Christ  embodied  perfectly  in  his  human  life, 
by  which  he  became  the  Saviour  of  the  world : 
obedience  to  the  will  of  God. 

"  My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me 
and  to  finish  his  work":  those  words  are  the  full 
expression  of  Christ's  mission.  His  life  is  summed 
up  in  the  one  word — obedience.  What  would  have 
been  had  the  Jews  accepted  him,  we  cannot  even 
guess.  As  it  was,  that  obedience  demanded  his 
submission  to  the  most  cruel  death  at  the  hands  of 
those  to  whose  service  he  had  given  himself.  So 
understood.  Christ's  life  becomes  unified  under  one 
great  principle,  and  we  are  freed  from  the  barren 
sophistical  distinctions  in  which  theology  had  be- 
come involved. 

I   have  said  that  a  growing  faith  is  at  a  certain 


TIIK    I'KIJSON   OF    CHRIST.  211 

point  brought  before  the  question  :  Was  Christ  more 
than  man  ?  The  way  to  answer  that  question,  we 
found,  was  by  a  sympathetic  study  of  the  historic 
life  of  Christ,  for  which  I  have  pointed  out  certain 
guiding  principles.  Now  we  come  to  formulate  the 
answer. 

The  first  step  in  this  process  is  the  recognition  of 
Christ  as  the  revelation  of  God.  There  is  this  pe- 
culiarity about  his  life  that  it  is  always  pointing 
away  from  itself  to  God.  Christ  makes  God  known 
to  us.  In  his  inner  life  we  read  the  heart  of  the 
Father.  We  recognise  the  significance  of  the  state- 
ment: "  God  ....  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken 
unto  us  by  his  son  "  (Heb.  i.  2). 

This  leads  us  to  the  next  step  of  the  enquiry. 
Christ  being  the  revelation  of  God  implies  a  certain 
participation  in  divinity.  How  then  shall  we  define 
his  personality  ? 

The  question  of  the  person  of  Christ  was  the  burn- 
ing problem  of  the  early  Christian  ages  and  was  dis- 
puted in  the  ecumenical  councils.  The  definitions 
set  forth  by  these  councils  do  not  help  us  much. 
That  of  the  two  natures  is  simply  a  logical  defini- 
tion. For  the  time  when  they  were  made  such 
definitions  were  doubtless  sufficient;  historically, 
they  are  very  important.  They  do  not  satisfy  us, 
because  to  say  that  two  things  go  together,  when  we 
cannot  form  any  conception  of  the  process,  conveys 
little  meaning  to  us.  You  cannot  deceive  yourself 
into  believing  that  you  have  accomplished  much 
by  putting    the  two    natures  together  and  calling 


212  THE   KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

them  one  person,  when  you  cannot  define  a  human 
nature,  and  have  no  conception  what  a  divine  nature 
is.  There  is  indeed  great  danger  from  the  misinter- 
pretation of  this  article.  It  is  the  danger  which  the 
treatment  of  spiritual  subjects  always  carries  with  it : 
that  we  should  forget  that  after  all  we  conceive  of 
spiritual  things  only  by  concrete  analogies,  and  that 
we  imagine  the  two  natures  existing  side  by  side  as 
material  objects  do. 

The  important  truth  conveyed  by  the  definition 
of  Christ's  person  in  Article  II.  is,  that  he  was  both 
perfect  Man  and  perfect  God.  But  just  here  the 
real  problem  begins.  How  shall  we  explain  and 
realise  the  co-existence  of  the  two  ?  The  docetic 
doctrine,  which  made  Christ's  humanity  a  mere  pre- 
tence, is  supposed  to  have  been  ruled  out  by  the 
Chalcedonian  formula;  yet  the  popular  conceptions 
of  our  day  are  a  close  approach  to  docetism.  Christ 
is  asserted  to  have  been  man,  but  there  is  an  implied 
understanding  that  he  was  not  confined  by  the  limi- 
tations of  humanity.  He  was  omniscient  and  om- 
nipotent, even  if  he  did  not  use  his  powers,  or  but 
rarely.  But  where,  we  may  ask,  if  these  divine 
attributes  are  granted,  does  there  remain  any  mark 
of  his  humanity  except  the  human  body  ?  We  can 
hardly  escape  the  conclusion  that  upon  this  theory 
the  humanity  of  Christ  was  something  worse  than  a 
fiction:  a  deception.  The  "  communicatio  idioma- 
tum,"  invented  to  explain  the  mystery,  is  useless:  a 
mere  trick  of  words  without  any  reality.  The  can- 
did student  finds  himself  forced  to  make  one  con- 


THE    PERSON   OF    CHRIST.  213 

cession  after  another:  Christ  was  not  gifted  with 
omniscience  where  the  interests  of  his  work  were 
not  involved;  Christ  did  not  necessarily  have  at  his 
disposal  all  human  knowledge  in  all  its  branches; 
he  did  not  possess  omnipotent  power  for  every 
conceivable  purpose.  But  these  concessions  make 
it  evident  that  we  can  form  no  conception  of  Christ 
with  his  divinity  and  his  humanity  both  equally 
active. 

A  way  out  of  the  difificulty  was  supposed  to  have 
been  found  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Kenosis.  The 
divinity  was  in  abeyance  during  the  earthly  life  of 
the  Saviour.  This  doctrine  is  largely  held  to-day. 
As  a  confession  of  ignorance  concerning  the  meta- 
physical Godhead  of  Christ,  it  may  be  accepted. 
As  a  full  explanation  of  the  Christological  problem, 
it  is  quite  inadequate.  It  shares  with  the  other 
view,  which  it  superseded,  this  vitiating  fault :  it  re- 
gards the  problem  solely  on  its  metaphysical  side. 
It  sets  itself  to  answer  this  question :  granted  a  God 
entering  the  human  sphere,  wherein  can  we  trace  the 
divinity  ?  And  the  answer  given  is  correct,  so  far 
as  it  goes :  it  denies  the  possibility  of  a  metaphysical 
knowledge  of  the  Godhead.  But  the  doctrine  of  the 
Kenosis,  by  asserting  that  the  divinity  is  hidden,  in 
abeyance,  remains  a  prisoner  in  the  fatal  meshes  of 
metaphysical  reasoning.  That  conception  of  Christ 
which  simply  asserts  his  metaphysical  Godhead  as 
an  article  of  cold,  intellectual  belief,  which  fails  to 
trace  the  meaning  of  that  Godhead  in  the  earthly 
life  and  to  appreciate  the  significance  of  it  as  a  fact 


21  J:  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

of  Christ's  life  for  me,  for  my  religious  interests, 
which  does  not  make  the  divinity  of  Christ  a  present 
fact  of  my  own  experience :  this  conception  falls  by 
many  degrees  below  the  Christian  level ;  it  moves 
within  a  sphere  of  thought  which  is  proper,  not  to 
Christian  worship,  but  to  heathen  idolatry. 

We  again  ask :  granted  a  God  entering  human  life, 
wherein  can  we  trace  the  divinity  ?  And  the  answer 
is  this:  the  marks  of  the  divinity  must  be  found  in 
the  moral  and  the  spiritual  sphere.  Renouncing  all 
attempt  to  exceed  the  powers  of  the  human  mind, 
we  may  affirm  that  Christ,  in  his  life  upon  earth, 
perfectly  revealed  the  being  of  God,  so  far  as  it  is 
possible  to  reveal  God  in  hiinian  form.  This  state- 
ment is  based  upon  the  recognition  of  two  facts : 
first,  that  there  is  a  sphere  of  truth  which  belongs 
to  the  infinite,  which  is  beyond  the  world  of  phe- 
nomena. The  latter  alone  is  known  to  us.  We  are 
not  gifted  with  faculties  to  penetrate  into  the  eternal 
reality  behind.  So  far  as  we  can  conceive  any  being 
from  the  world  of  eternal  reality  entering  into  man's 
life,  it  can  only  be — for  our  knowledge — under  laws 
known  to  us.  But,  secondly,  there  is  one  sphere  in 
which  man  stands  even  now  above  time,  in  eternity : 
that  is,  the  moral  and  spiritual.  It  is  given  to  us  to 
have  some  knowledge  of  the  divine  in  the  sphere  of 
God's  moral  and  spiritual  laws.  Therefore,  if  we 
would  know  the  God  in  Christ,  we  must  know  him 
in  his  moral  and  spiritual  relations. 

Just  here,  the  study  of  the  gospels  has  opened  a 
mine  of  infinite  wealth.     Wc  can  do  no  more  than 


THE    PERSON    OF    CHRIST.  215 

glance  at  a  few  particulars,  to  see  how  the  deeper 
study  of  Christ's  life  has  strengthened  the  belief  in 
liim  as  the  unique  among  men,  as  the  perfect  reve- 
lation of  God  in  human  life.  Let  us  take  the  story 
of  the  Christ-child  in  the  temple.  It  throws  the 
only  ray  of  light  upon  the  maturing  consciousness 
of  Jesus.  He  had  been  fascinated  by  the  novel  in- 
terests of  the  temple  and  new  thoughts  seemed  to 
take  hold  of  him.  His  answer  to  his  mother  re- 
vealed that  a  turning-point  had  been  reached  in  his 
development:  "  Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be  about 
my  father's  business  ?  "  Here  is  a  child  of  twelve 
years  who  uses  an  expression  which  no  human  be- 
ing, before  or  since,  has  dared  to  use.  God  had 
been  a  father  to  Israel,  Christ  taught  his  followers 
to  pray:  "  Our  Father  who  art  in  heaven;  "  but  no 
individual  has  ever  been  aware  of  such  a  relationship 
to  God  that  he  could  look  up  and  call  him:  *'  my 
father."  We  can  explain  the  expression  on  the 
lips  of  the  child  in  no  other  way  than  upon  the  as- 
sumption that  there  came  at  this  time  into  his  mind 
the  feeling  of  a  relation  to  God,  closer,  more  inti- 
mate, than  that  between  God  and  any  other  human 
being.  And  by  this  light  we  can  understand  in 
some  degree  the  growth  of  the  child.  The  know- 
ledge of  himself  came  to  him  slowly,  with  the  devel- 
oping consciousness;  and  it  came  to  him,  not  as  a 
knowledge  of  superhuman  endowment,  nor  as  an 
insight  into  the  metaphysical  relation  between  him 
and  God,  but  through  the  growing  sense  of  being  in 
a  special  way  the  object  of  the  divine  love. 


216  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

In  the  mature  life  of  Christ  we  can  trace  his 
divinity,  not  so  much  by  the  miracles,  as  in  the 
moral  and  spiritual  grandeur  with  which  he  is  in- 
vested. Sometimes,  it  shows  itself  in  a  startling 
utterance,  and  then  we  are  afforded  one  of  those 
precious  glimpses  into  the  workings  of  his  conscious- 
ness.     So,  when  he  boldly  challenges  his  opponents : 

Which  of  you  convinceth  me  of  sin  ?  "  No  cloud 
of  moral  imperfection  could  dim  the  consciousness 
of  one, who,  as  sober  and  far  removed  from  fanaticism 
as  Christ  was,  could  make  this  unheard-of  claim. 
But  it  is  more  especially  in  his  action,  in  the  tenor 
of  his  life,  that  we  trace  the  God  in  Christ :  in  the 
harmonious  mingling  of  womanly  tenderness  with 
manly  courage,  in  that  majesty  which  forced  even 
from  the  rude  soldiers  their  involuntary  tribute  in 
the  garden  of  Gethsemane,  in  the  compassion  for 
all  pain  and  weakness,  in  the  meekness  of  the  suf- 
ferer. Above  all,  we  trace  it  in  one  marvellous 
manifestation.  I  have  already  spoken  of  it.  It  is 
his  mastership.  We  recognise  it  in  the  impression 
we  get  from  his  life,  that  whatever  his  situation, 
Christ  was  always  superior  to  it.  It  is  the  unbroken 
calmness  of  his  life,  testifying  to  an  unconquerable 
self-confidence.  Contrast  Christ's  attitude  towards 
God  and  his  attitude  to  men.  Towards  God,  a  con- 
stant expectation,  a  waiting  upon  the  divine  guid- 
ance, a  hearkening  for  the  voice  by  which  to  shape 
his  course:  an  attitude  of  utter  and  complete  de- 
pendence. On  the  other  hand,  in  his  relations 
towards    men,    with   his   intense    sympathy    for   all 


THE    PEKSON    OF    CHRIST.  217 

things  human  and  his  readiness  to  accept  men's 
sympathy :  a  complete  absence  of  dependence. 
Where  we  anxiously  watch  the  effect  of  our  actions, 
where  success  or  failure  so  largely  determines  our 
conduct,  where  we  alternate  between  hopes  and 
fears,  enthusiasm  and  despondency,  we  see  in  Christ 
a  serene  elevation  above  the  vicissitudes  of  his 
career,  a  persistent  maintenance  of  faith  in  his  cause 
undisturbed  by  opposition  and  apparent  failure,  a 
persevering  belief  in  human  nature,  an  unconquer- 
able hope  for  the  future  and  a  steadfastness  of  pur- 
pose which  is  neither  the  doggedness  of  obstinacy 
nor  the  blindness  of  enthusiasm.  It  is  this  which  is 
the  wonder  of  Christ's  life. 

No  painter  has  yet  caught  the  spell  of  such  a 
scene  as  that  of  Christ  before  Pilate.  When  Chris- 
tian art,  which  in  a  Sistine  Madonna  came  so  near 
the  ideal  of  the  womanly,  shall  succeed  in  setting 
before  us  the  true  Christ  in  that  scene ;  then,  in  the 
manly  grasp  of  life,  in  the  superiority  to  his  situa- 
tion, which  his  features  will  display,  it  will  teach  us 
to  realise  better  than  before  the  divinity  of  the  Son 
of  Man.  It  is  beyond  our  faculties  to  comprehend 
how  the  infinite  could  be  incarnate  in  the  human  ;  but 
it  is  not  beyond  our  faculties  to  trace  in  the  spiritual 
and  moral  life  of  Christ  the  marks  of  divine  character. 

We  must  not  fail  to  distinguish,  as  has  here  been 
done,  between  the  practical  and  metaphysical  di- 
vinity of  Christ.  In  what  I  have  just  now  said  I 
have  been  treating  of  the  practical  divinity.  It  is 
that  belief  in  Christ  which  enters  directly  as  a  mo- 


218  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

tive  into  our  life.  Christ  is  the  perfect  revelation 
of  God,  and  therefore  is  God  to  me.  In  his  life,  and 
in  it  alone,  I  learn  to  know  God.  In  Christ  it  has 
pleased  God  to  make  himself  known  to  man.  It  is 
"  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  so  far  as  God  can  be 
manifest,  when  the  eternal  enters  into  the  sphere  of 
the  finite.  This  is  the  saving  truth  upon  which  the 
soul  feeds. 

The  human  mind  obeys  an  irresistible  impulse  in 
enquiring  into  the  metaphysical  foundation.  It 
asks :  what  is  the  essential  relation  of  Christ  to  the 
Father  ?  What  was  the  mode  of  his  being  before 
he  appeared  in  the  flesh  ?  Here  is  the  rightful 
sphere  of  dogma.  It  goes  beyond  the  historical  con- 
ditions to  the  metaphysical  foundation ;  it  presents 
the  conditions  of  the  practical ;  it  pursues  the  ante- 
cedents to  the  last  conclusion. 

The  confounding  of  the  practical  and  the  meta- 
physical has  been  the  fruitful  source  of  misunder- 
standing. Dogma  represents  the  metaphysical 
foundation.  It  is  necessary.  Athanasius  fought 
the  battle  for  the  metaphysical  divinity  of  Christ, 
and  the  Church  has  held  fast  to  his  assertion  of  it. 
But  if  the  practical  belief  in  Christ's  revelation  is 
insufficient  without  the  doctrine,  it  is  equally  true 
that  the  doctrine  without  the  vital  conviction  is 
useless.*     Nothing  is  more  shallow  than  a  mere  as- 

'  Doctrine  is  the  skeleton  under  the  flesh  and  blood.  The  late 
bishop  of  Massachusetts  was  persecuted  and  his  memory  is  still  being 
persecuted,  because,  for  gross  eyes,  he  did  not  make  the  skeleton 
sufficiently  protrude  from  under  the  body  of  flesh  and  blood,  as  he 
with  his  inimitable  skill  painted  it. 


THE    PERSON    OF    CHRIST.  219 

sertion  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  without  any  know- 
ledge of  its  meaning.  It  is  the  form  of  religion 
without  its  power,  and  the  form  often  covers  the 
grossest  practical  infidelity. 

We  may  not  forget  that  metaphysics  is  not  re- 
ligion. When  St.  Thomas  exclaimed  to  the  risen 
Christ:  "  My  Lord  and  my  God,"  his  words  ex- 
pressed a  religious  conviction.  The  statement  of 
the  creed  "  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  very  God 
of  very  God  "  is  the  speculative  conclusion  from 
the  religious  fact.     It  is  not  religion  but  theology. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  ETHICAL  DETERMINATION  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN 

LIFE. 

The  kingdom  of  God  comprehends  two  distinct 
elements  of  human  life,  its  religious  and  its  ethical 
determination.  The  religious  is  a  separable  ele- 
ment ;  the  primary  factor  in  Christian  character  is 
the  normal  relation  to  God  in  Christ.  We  now  pro- 
ceed to  consider  the  ethical  basis  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  I  shall  attempt  no  systematic  treatment,  but 
shall  endeavour  to  indicate  the  lines  which  must  be 
followed  in  order  to  obtain  a  full  appreciation  of  the 
term  "  kingdom  of  God  "  as  used  by  Christ. 

We  may  complete  the  formal  definition.  The 
kingdom  of  God  is  the  sphere  in  which  man  ap- 
proaches God.  But  it  is  something  more;  another 
condition  enters  into  it.  That  condition  is  the  ethi- 
cal regulation  of  life,  the  organisation  of  human 
society  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God.  It  em- 
braces the  fulfilment  of  duty  to  self  and  to  others. 
The  ideal  of  the  one  side  of  the  Christian  life  is  to  he 
right,  the  ideal  of  the  other  is  to  do  right.  In  the  one 
it  is  a  question  of  the  state  in  which  a  man  is,  in  the 
other  it  is  a  question  of  man's  conduct.  The  con- 
trast is  the  familiar  one  of  faith  and  works.      Faith  is 


ETHICAL    UETERMIXATIOX    OF    CHRISTIAN    LIFE.       221 

the  essential  principle  of  the  Christian  life.  But 
when  you  have  established  yourself  in  Christian  faith, 
the  question  still  is,  What  am  I  to  do  as  a  Christian  ? 
Christ  gave  abundant  attention  to  this  side  of  the 
Christian  life.  He  recognised  the  ancient  law  and 
commanded  us  to  love  God  and  to  love  our  neighbour. 
He  bade  men  be  merciful,  not  to  judge,  be  perfect, 
not  to  swear,  not  to  retaliate,  not  to  take  unneces- 
sary thought,  to  be  wise,  to  be  liberal,  to  honour 
parents,  to  deny  themselves,  to  be  watchful,  to  be 
faithful ;  he  taught  the  sacredness  of  marriage  and  of 
the  family ;  he  held  up  to  scorn  the  hypocrisy  of  the 
Pharisees;  he  taught  a  nicer  discrimination  of  moral 
value.  In  all  this  and  much  more,  Jesus  points  out 
the  ethical  basis  of  his  kingdom.  We  may,  therefore, 
define  the  kingdom  of  God  to  be  that  new  society 
inaugurated  by  Jesus,  whose  fundamental  principles 
consist,  first,  in  the  re-establishment  of  man's  normal 
relation  to  God,  secondly,  in  the  organisation  of 
human  relationships  according  to  the  laws  of  God. 

Is  that  dualism  definitive  ?  This  is  the  question 
that  has  puzzled  the  Christian  mind  ever  since  St. 
Paul  wrote  that  man  is  saved  by  faith,  and  St.  James 
that  man  is  s^ved  by  works.  The  human  mind 
craves  above  all  things  unity.  The  case  now  before 
us  presents  a  peculiarly  difficult  problem,  and  the 
great  intellectual  effort  spent  upon  it  has  not  dis- 
covered a  satisfactory  solution.  We  see  an  illus- 
tration of  this  effort  at  unification  in  our  article  "  Of 
Good  Works"  (No.  XII),  where  it  is  asserted  that 
they  "  do  spring  out  necessarily  of  a  true  and  lively 


222  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

faith ;  insomuch  that  by  them  a  lively  Faith  may  be 
as  evidently  known  as  a  tree  discerned  by  the  fruit." 
As  far  as  this  sentence  is  true  it  presents  a  barren 
tautology.  For  faith  is  simply  made  to  include  the 
motive  to  good  works  ;  and  then,  of  course,  the  good 
works  "  necessarily"  follow  upon  faith.  But  this 
inclusive  definition  of  faith  is  not  one  that  can  be 
universally  applied.  So,  too,  the  decree  on  justifi- 
cation of  the  Council  of  Trent  presents  an  elaborate 
attempt  at  reconciling  faith  and  works ;  with  the 
result,  however,  of  an  aimless  vacillation  between 
the  two  poles  of  Christian  experience. 

We  may  say,  as  Ritschl  does,  that  the  Christian 
life  is  not  like  the  circle,  but  like  the  ellipse,  revolv- 
ing around  two  points;  but  that  does  not  explain  it. 
This  is  a  physical  analogy  and  another  illustration  of 
the  incompleteness  of  this  sort  of  reasoning.  The 
stars  which  revolve  in  ellipses  obey  the  laws  of  na- 
ture. The  human  will  differs  from  the  star  in  that 
it  has  the  choice  of  disobedience,  and  we  want  to 
find  the  answer  to  this  very  question.  Why  should  I 
obey  the  laws  of  the  ellipse  rather  than  the  simple 
law  of  the  one  centre  ?  In  like  manner,  when  we  say 
that  good  works  are  both  the  signs  ^nd  the  organs 
of  faith,  we  express  an  important  truth,  namely,  that 
by  good  works  we  recognise  the  man's  disposition, 
and  that  the  disposition  is  strengthened  by  the  prac- 
tice of  good  works.  We  may  also  say  that  each  is 
practically  necessary  to  the  other.  You  cannot  do 
life's  work  without  peace  with  God,  and  you  cannot 
live  near  God  without  doing  your  duty.      But  with 


ETHICAL    DETERMIXATIOX    OF    CIIKISTIAX    LIFE.      228 

all  these  explanations  we  have  not  established  unity 
of  principle.  We  cannot  imagine  a  finished  Christian 
character  without  either  faith  or  good  works.  But 
why  does  not  the  right  relationship  to  God  include 
the  right  relationship  to  man  ?  Why  can  we  not 
sum  up  the  whole  Christian  life  in  one  compre- 
hensive principle  ?  That  we  cannot  do  this  seems 
to  be  the  plain  teaching  of  experience.  Whatever 
our  faith  is,  however  strong,  however  perfect  our 
trust  in  God,  duty  always  faces  us  in  the  shape  of  a 
resolution ;  we  have  to  make  up  our  minds  to  do 
what  is  right ;  and  when,  as  often  is  the  case,  this 
making  up  our  minds  involves  the  overcoming  of 
a  certain  amount  of  repugnance  in  the  shape  of  the 
love  of  ease  or  shrinking  from  effort,  so  far  from  the 
action  flowing  naturally  out  of  the  motive,  as  the 
sound  does  upon  the  blow  of  the  hammer,  it  requires 
the  bringing  up  of  the  forces  of  our  moral  nature, 
with  the  implied  expenditure  of  more  or  less  moral 
energy. 

Mr.  Spencer  maintains  that  the  sense  of  duty  or 
moral  obligation  is  transitory;  with  the  advance  of 
civilisation  a  time  will  come  when  it  will  be  en- 
tirely cast  off,  when  man  will  have  become  so  used 
to  doing  the  right  thing  that  it  will  be  impossible  for 
him  to  do  anything  else.  If  the  dream  is  ever  real- 
ised in  the  way  Mr.  Spencer  imagines,  then  man 
will  have  ceased  to  be  man  and  will  have  become  a 
machine.  The  Christian  also  looks  forward  to  the 
state  in  which  the  sense  of  duty  shall  cease  to  be  a 
coercive  power,  but  it  will  be  under  different  con- 


224  THE    KlX(JJ>OM    OF    GOD. 

ditions  and  in  another  world.  In  this  earthly  sphere 
it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  trouble  ourselves  much 
with  these  speculations.  If  there  should  ever  be  a 
prospect  that  a  man  should  leave  his  bed  on  a  cold 
winter's  night  in  response  to  a  call  of  duty  without 
the  necessity  of  a  moral  effort  to  overcome  the 
physical  repugnance,  then  we  shall  be  ready  to  give 
serious  attention  to  Mr.  Spencer's  prophecy.  In 
the  meantime  we  shall  have  to  deal  with  duty  as 
something  which  is  often  very  disagreeable,  and 
which  requires  strong  motives  to  make  us  do  it.  In 
fact,  we  have  a  suspicion,  as  already  stated,  that  we 
shall  have  to  be  more  careful  about  our  motives  in 
the  future  than  we  ever  were  before. 

We  are  forced  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  dualism 
of  the  religious  and  the  ethical  determination  of  the 
Christian  life  is  insurmountable.  Practically  there 
is  no  way  out.  We  shall  never  get  beyond  the 
effort.  It  is  only  the  fanaticism  of  a  pagan  mystic- 
ism that  can  ever  say :  I  have  arrived  at  that  perfec- 
tion of  the  Christian  life,  I  have  so  united  myself  to 
God,  than  sin  is  not  for  me.  When  a  man  gives  up 
watching  himself,  when  he  yields  to  the  delusion 
that  no  more  effort  is  required  of  him,  when  his  life 
ceases  to  be  a  moral  struggle,  he  has  entered  upon 
the  downward  path. 

But  if  the  dualism  cannot  be  reduced,  it  can  be 
explained.  The  explanation  is  in  the  fact  of  sin. 
Sin  is  a  radical  disturbance  in  our  relations,  a  lack  of 
harmony  in  our  nature.  "  The  spirit  is  willing,  but 
the  flesh  is  weak."     The  dualism  of  principle  in  the 


ETHICAL    DETERMINATION    OF    CIIKISTIAN    LIFE.       225 

religious  life  is  owing  to  the  disharmony  of  our  na- 
ture. But  normal  humanity  is  not  a  sinful  humanity. 
We  can  conceive  of  a  life  without  the  disturbing 
element  of  sin.  Such  would  be  the  normal  life.  In 
this  normal  life  there  would  be  but  one  principle, 
that  of  man's  complete  union  with  God.  With  the 
disturbance  of  that  normal  relation  through  sin  came 
in  the  other  principle,  the  ethical,  the  necessity  of 
law,  of  effort.  Without  sin,  the  performance  of 
duty  would  be  natural ;  or  rather,  there  would  be  no 
duty,  no  law.  Life  would  be  all  towards  God, 
summed  up  in  one  principle :  fellowship  with  God. 
To  that  state  we  believe  we  shall  come,  but  in  an- 
other world.  In  this  life  we  must  be  satisfied  to  get 
on  as  well  as  we  can  under  a  necessary  dualism.  It 
will  always  carry  with  it  uncertainty  and  vacillation. 
At  this  moment  you  will  feel  yourself  in  a  state  of 
■peaceful  fellowship  with  God ;  it  is  the  joy  of  your 
life.  But  presently  that  peace  is  disturbed  by  the 
insistent  question,  Have  I  done  all  my  duty  ?  To 
harmonise  the  two  is  the  Christian's  great  difficulty. 
To  find  the  right  mean  between  the  satisfaction  of 
stern  duty  and  the  enjoyment  of  the  sense  of  security 
in  God  is  one  of  the  perplexities  of  life.  We  can 
never  expect  to  arrive  at  a  state  of  perfect  harmony 
in  this  life,  because  there  will  always  be  that  jarring 
between  the  ethical  and  the  religious. 

We  can  now  see  the  element  of  truth  in  the  con- 
tention which  Mr.  Spencer  makes.  The  ethical  is 
transitory;  but  it  will  pass  away  only  under  other 
conditions  of  life;  then  it  will  be  engulfed   in   the 


226  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

complete  union  and  fellowship  with  God.  There 
will  be  a  time  when  goodness,  justice,  virtue,  and 
all  other  terms  denoting  ethical  value,  will  have  no 
meaning,  because  their  present  significance  is  de- 
rived only  from  their  opposite,  which  is  sin.  In  that 
world  where  the  spiritual  will  be  in  complete  mastery, 
sin  will  be  no  more.  We  can  see  also  how  there  is 
even  here  an  approach  to  that  state.  With  the  re- 
peated performance  of  duty,  duty  becomes  easier. 
The  ethical  law  tends  to  be  minimised,  as  man 
grows  into  closer  religious  fellowship  with  God. 
That  it  will  ever  disappear  in  this  life,  and  that  with 
it  duty  and  sin  will  be  eliminated  from  the  vocabu- 
lary of  human  nature,  is  a  phantom  of  the  scientific 
brain. 

It  is  a  far-reaching  principle  of  human  life  that  the 
higher  law  tends  to  supplant  the  lower.  Man  is  re- 
lieved from  subjection  to  law,  but  only  on  condition 
that  he  yields  himself  to  the  higher  law.  In  savage 
life  the  ruling  principle  is  very  much  the  same  as  in 
the  brute-world :  ceaseless  rivalry  and  competition. 
The  result  is,  only  the  fittest  survive.  As  man  ad- 
vances in  civilisation  he  learns  to  substitute  another 
principle,  that  of  co-operation ;  the  sense  of  human 
solidarity,  the  feeling  of  human  sympathy,  has 
largely  overcome  the  old  order  of  things  in  which 
every  man  was  for  himself.  The  consequence  is, 
that  the  law  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest  is  to  a  con- 
siderable extent  superseded.  Men  and  women  sur- 
vive, who  for  some  shortcoming,  physical  or  moral, 
would    not    have    survived   under   the    old    system. 


ETHICAL    DETERMINATION    OF    CniJISTlAN    J.IFE.       22 


L^  i 


The  story  of  this  vast  complex  life  of  ours  is  the 
story  of  the  delicate  balance  between  the  two  laws, 
the  lower  and  the  higher.' 

Our  penal  methods  illustrate  how  the  higher  re- 
lieves the  lower  law.  A  man  has  committed  a  crime. 
The  law  says  he  must  suffer.  It  cares  nothing  for 
the  man,  only  for  the  retaliation.  In  a  rough  way 
the  mere  punishment  of  crime  works  for  the  purifi- 
cation of  society  by  cutting  the  diseased  parts  out 
of  the  body  politic.  But  we  have  become  aware 
that  there  is  another  law,  often  more  effective  than 
the  law  of  retaliation:  the  law  of  human  sympathy. 
Men  have  been  touched  and  reformed  by  the  power 
of  sympathy  where  the  mere  force  of  punishment 
has  proved  powerless. 

This  progress  from  the  lower  to  the  higher  ex- 
plains the  relation  between  the  ethical  and  the  re- 
ligious in  the  Christian  life.  The  beginning  is  with 
the  ethical.  The  law  was  before  Christ.  Man  must 
first  learn  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong. 
But  as  he  advances,  he  comes  more  and  more  under 
the  sway  of  another  principle:  his  relation  to  God 
tends  to  fill  his  life,  and  the  ethical  law  grows  less 

'  This  fact  of  the  two  laws  running  through  our  life  is  one  of  the 
utmost  importance,  and  if  kept  in  view  would  clear  up  many  misun- 
derstandings. Compare  Gordon,  The  Christ  of  To-Day,  p.  88  : 
"  Granted  that  the  necessity  for  the  ferocious  egoism  in  animal  exist- 
ence is  an  absolute  mystery,  the  fact  that  it  is  a  vanishing  force,  and 
that  from  the  first  it  is  clearly  under  the  ascendancy  of  another  force, 
the  altruistic  impulse  of  parenthood,  pours  a  flood  of  light  through 
the  whole  wild  process  of  nature."  Even  in  the  brute-world  there  is 
this  foreshadowing  of  the  twofoldness  of  law  governing  life. 


228  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

exacting,  because  it  has  become  a  part  of  his  nature. 
The  end  of  the  process  will  be  in  another  world, 
where  the  ethical  will  be  no  more,  because  it  is  ab- 
sorbed in  the  one  permanent,  constant  principle  of 
human  life:  union  with  God.  These  considerations 
satisfy  the  mind  which  craves  for  unity,  by  showing 
that  the  present  dualism,  though  necessary  for  the 
time,  is  abnormal,  due  to  man's  abnormal  condition, 
and  will  eventually  yield  to  a  permanent  unity  of 
principle. 

We  found,  in  treating  of  the  religious  determina- 
tion of  the  Christian  life,  that  Christ  sets  forth  God 
as  the  object  of  his  revelation.  It  was  his  mission  to 
reveal  God  and  to  bring  man  to  the  fellowship  with 
God.  Man's  religious  life  centres  in  God.  Where, 
we  now  ask,  does  the  ethical  life  centre  ?  What  is 
the  Christian's  ethical  end  and  purpose  ?  What  is 
his  final  authority,  his  moral  guide  ?  This  question 
is  one  of  the  most  important  man  can  ask  himself. 

Let  us  examine  the  records.  Christ  established 
the  kingdom  of  God.  He  must  have  had  in  mind 
what  was  to  be  the  final  authority  for  the  subjects  of 
that  kingdom.  Christ  did  not  institute  the  king- 
dom as  something  new :  it  was  as  the  fulfilment  of  the 
old,  as  the  bringing  to  its  appointed  completion  of 
all  that  the  old  covenant  contained,  as  the  culmina- 
tion of  the  ancient  history,  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
came  into  the  world.  It  was  no  revolution,  but  the 
growing  of  the  bud  into  the  flower.  Therefore  Christ 
recognised  the  revelation  of  the  Old  Testament  and 


ETHICAL    DETEIIMIXATIOX    OF    CHRISTIAN    LIFE.       229 

the  validity  of  the  Old  Testament  law.  If  the  in- 
terpretation which  he  gave  was  more  spiritual  and 
free,  yet  he  did  not  absolve  his  followers  from  obe- 
dience to  the  law.  Therefore  the  question  of  the 
obligation  of  the  Jewish  law  in  the  Christian  Church 
became  the  first  burning  question.  With  the  acces- 
sion of  large  numbers  of  Gentiles  to  the  Christian 
fold  there  could  be  but  one  answer  to  that  question. 
Those  who  believe  in  Providence  cannot  resist  the 
conclusion  that  St.  Paul  was  especially  raised  up, 
one  of  those  rare  characters  who  by  the  power  of 
their  personal  influence  change  the  destinies  of  man- 
kind, in  order  that  the  Church  in  this  supreme  crisis 
might  be  led  into  the  path  of  universal  religion. 
To-day,  the  Church  unanimously  accepts  the  verdict 
of  St.  Paul  which  cast  off  the  trammels  of  Judaism. 
We  still  ask  ourselves,  doubtfully.  How  do  we  recon- 
cile this  with  the  very  positive  statements  of  Christ, 
which  seem  to  make  the  Jewish  law  binding  ?  But 
we  think  we  can  see  how  Christ  himself  was  prepar- 
ing the  way  for  a  larger  conception  of  religion.  His 
spiritual  view  foreshadowed  a  time  when  the  law 
would  lose  its  significance.  He  looked  into  a  future 
where  men  should  no  more  worship  God  either  in 
Jerusalem  or  on  Gerizim ;  he  recognised  a  spiritual 
worship  of  God  above  the  worship  of  material  sacri- 
fices.     He  spoke  of  the  temple  as  transitory. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  very  kingdom  which  he 
announced  presupposed  a  king.  Accordingly,  we 
find  it  implied  in  some  of  Jesus'  words,  that  the  au- 
thority of  a  living  king  would  be  supreme  among  his 


230  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

followers.  To  his  disciples  he  says,  "  I  am  with 
you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  And 
when  he  made  this  promise  he  could  not  have 
thought  of  his  continued  presence  otherwise  than  as 
their  Master,  their  King. 

We  do  well  to  dwell  upon  this  claim  to  kingship 
which  Christ  made,  as  showing  what  in  his  mind  was 
intended  to  be  the  final  court  of  appeal,  the  last 
authority,  of  the  Christian.  The  time  was  to  come 
when  this  claim  should  be  forgotten,  neglected,  put 
aside,  despoiled  of  its  meaning,  in  favour  of  a  theory 
which,  reverting  to  the  Hebrew  conception  of  a  writ- 
ten law,  has  by  the  almost  unanimous  consent  of 
Christendom  exercised  a  controlling  authority :  the 
theory  of  biblical  infallibility,  which  teaches  that  the 
last  authority  for  the  Christian  in  the  ethical  and  the 
spiritual  sphere  is  the  written  word. 

We  are  thus  brought  face  to  face  with  this  theory. 
It  is  necessary  that  we  should  define  our  position 
towards  it,  because  it  concerns  us  at  this  point  to 
know  what  is  the  final  ethical  authority  in  the  king- 
dom of  God.  But  aside  from  that,  the  discussion  of 
every  theological  question  proceeds  upon  a  certain 
conception  of  the  Bible,  and  whoever  undertakes 
such  a  discussion  is  bound  to  state  the  theory  of  the 
Bible  upon  which  he  takes  his  stand.  No  full  treat- 
ment can,  of  course,  be  entered  into  here.  Results 
only  can  be  given,  with  a  brief  reference  to  the 
methods  by  which  these  results  are  reached.  I  shall 
deal  only  with  the  New  Testament.  There  are  in- 
teresting and  important  questions  which  concern  the 


I:TI1U\VL    DETEimiXATION    OF    CHRISTIAX    LIFK.       281 

Old  Testament,  but  the  New  Testament  is  the  key 
to  the  problem,  and  it  is  from  New  Testament 
studies  that  we  have  gained  the  most  decisive  results. 

I  shall  sum  up  what  I  have  to  say  about  the  au- 
thority of  the  New  Testament  under  three  heads. 
First,  those  methods  will  be  set  forth  which  alone 
promise  satisfactory  results.  Secondly,  the  conclu- 
sions will  be  drawn.  Thirdly,  certain  bearings  of 
the  traditional  theory  will  be  considered. 

I.  First,  as  to  the  proper  methods  by  which  the 
question  of  biblical  authority  is  to  be  studied.  One 
cannot  help  wondering,  as  volume  after  volume 
appears,  treating  of  the  Bible,  its  authority,  and 
inspiration,  from  an  a  priori  point  of  view,  why  it 
seems  so  rarely  to  occur  to  anyone  that  the  only 
way  to  answer  these  questions  is  by  a  study  of  the 
facts,  by  finding  out  what  the  Bible  contains,  and  its 
history,  and  then  drawing  the  conclusions.  This  is 
the  method  of  procedure  followed  in  all  other 
branches  of  investigation :  conclusions  are  drawn 
from  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  facts.  Not  so 
with  the  Bible.  Inspiration  is  supposed  to  be  some- 
thing which  can  be  determined  quite  aside  from  the 
thing  which  is  inspired  ;  consequently  a  whole  library 
of  literature  exists  upon  what  the  Bible  ought  to  be, 
little  regard  being  paid  to  what  it  is.  This  remarkable 
attitude  towards  the  Bible  was  noticed  long  ago  by 
Richard  Hooker,  who,  at  the  end  of  the  third  Book 
of  the  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  speaks  as  follows  of  those 
who  prove  their  point  by  arguing  that  God  viitst 
have  taught  certain  things  in  the  Bible  :  "...   they 


282  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD 

do  as  if  one  should  demand  a  legacy  by  force  and 
virtue  of  some  written  testament,  wherein  there  being 
no  such  thing  specified,  he  pleadeth  that  there  it 
must  needs  be,  and  bringeth  arguments  from  the 
love  or  goodwill  which  always  the  testator  bore  him  ; 
imagining,  that  these  or  the  like  proofs  will  convict 
a  testament  to  have  that  in  it  which  other  men  can 
nowhere  by  reading  find."  And  then  he  lays  down 
this  principle  which  every  theologian,  and  especially 
every  Bible  student,  would  do  well  to  adopt  as  his 
own:  "  In  matters  which  concern  the  actions  of 
God,  the  most  dutiful  way  on  our  part  is  to  search 
what  God  hath  done,  and  with  meekness  to  admire 
that,  rather  than  to  dispute  what  he  in  congruity  of 
reason  ought  to  do."  The  last  words  of  this  quota- 
tion describe  what  has  been  done  with  the  Bible; 
men  have  disputed  "what  in  congruity  of  reason  God 
ought  to  do."  Therefore  it  is  that  no  satisfactory 
conclusion  has  been  reached.  No  conclusion  ever 
can  be  reached  by  means  of  the  a  priori  method 
employed.  If  those  who  feel  the  unrest  of  public 
opinion  upon  this  question  hope  ever  to  put  an  end 
to  it,  and  so  to  satisfy  a  universal  desire  for  light,  it 
can  only  be  done  by  breaking  forever  with  the  irra- 
tional method  too  often  followed  and  devoting  them- 
selves to  a  thorough  investigation  into  the  text  of 
the  New  Testament  and  the  history  of  the  canon. 

For  there  are  these  two  departments  of  investiga- 
tion, with  which  we  are  here  concerned.'      (i)  The 

'  To  these  might  be  added  a  third  :   the  discipline  of  comparative 
religion.      But  this  is  more  uncertain  in  its  conclusions.     At  any  rate, 


ETHICAL    DETERMINATION    OF    CHRISTIAN    LIFE.       283 

study  of  the  history  of  the  canon  has  been  most 
fruitful  of  results.  We  are  now  in  a  position  to 
understand  the  several  steps  by  which  the  New 
Testament  took  its  present  shape  and  assumed  its 
authority.  The  one  thing  which  here  is  significant 
is  the  entire  absence  of  any  uniform  principle  in  the 
formation  of  the  canon.  A  number  of  tendencies 
co-operating  produced  the  result.  There  was  the 
need  of  writings  to  supply  the  place  of  absent  apos- 
tles. Then  there  was  the  authority  inherent  in  the 
words  of  Christ,  the  \6yoi  uvpiov,  which  from  the 
beginning  stood  on  a  level  with  the  Old  Testament. 
Then  there  was  the  public  reading  after  the  custom 
of  the  synagogue,  which  tended  to  give  a  certain 
sanctity  to  the  writings.  There  was  also  the  stress 
of  the  times,  which  made  the  defenders  of  the  faith 
against  heretics  look  for  some  authority  to  which  to 
appeal.  The  result  of  these  various  forces  is  seen 
in  the  gathering  together  of  a  certain  number  of 
documents  to  meet  the  practical  necessities  of  the 
Churches.  The  various  parts  acquired  authority  in 
various  ways  and  finally  were  bound  together  in  one 
volume  and  became  our  New  Testament. 

Only  a  willful  distortion  of  historical  facts  is  able 
to  obliterate  this  lack  of  unity  of  principle.     Why 

the  study  of  the  text  and  of  the  history  of  the  canon  are  abundantly 
sufficient  for  the  absolute  certainty  of  the  conclusions  here  set  forth. 
So  inveterate  is  the  prejudice  upon  this  subject,  that  not  until  the 
student  has  worked  his  way  to  a  satisfactory  solution  by  the  road  here 
suggested  will  in  most  cases  the  question  present  itself  in  its  full 
clearness  :  What  is  the  basis  of  this  colossal  doctrine  of  biblical 
infallibility? 


284  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

was  St.  Mark  included  in  the  canon  ?  or  St.  Luke  ? 
or  the  Acts  ?  or  St.  Jude  ?  or  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  ?  Upon  what  principle  were  the  writings 
of  Barnabas,  Clement  and  Hermas  excluded  ?  To 
these  questions  even  Origen  in  the  third  century 
could  find  no  answer  but  the  authority  of  tradition. 
And  we  are  to-day  obliged  to  acknowledge  tradition 
as  practically  the  only  principle  which  gives  authority 
to  our  New  Testament.  Nor  was  this  principle  alto- 
gether decisive,  as  the  long  disputes  about  the  Anti- 
legomena  prove,  and  such  facts  as  that  an  Epistle  to 
the  Laodiceans  was  added  to  the  Pauline  epistles 
in  England  in  the  ninth  century  or  that  the  Pastor 
of  Hermas  was  used  as  late  as  the  twelfth  century. 

No  doubt  the  tradition  of  the  Church,  the  almost 
universal  usage  of  Christendom  for  many  ages,  is  an 
authority  to  which  we  owe  every  respect.  No  doubt 
we  must  reverently  recognise  the  hand  of  God  in 
preserving  these  documents  of  the  earliest  Christian- 
ity through  these  many  ages.  But  if  God  had  willed 
that  these  writings  should  be  the  absolutely  infallible 
record  of  his  will,  would  he  not  have  given  us  some 
more  convincing  proof  than  appears  from  our  present 
knowledge  of  the  way  they  came  into  being  and  were 
incorporated  in  the  canon  ? 

(2)  The  most  important  factor  in  the  decision  of 
the  question  is  the  examination  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment itself.  Here  the  gospels  chiefly  claim  our 
attention.  The  study  of  the  gospels  has  been 
prosecuted  with  a  minuteness  and  a  keenness  of 
analysis  which  probably  has  no  parallel  in  the  field 


ETHICAL    DETERMINATION    OF    ClIKISTIAN    LIFE.       235 

of  literary  criticism,  with  the  result  that  the  human 
workmanship  of  these  writings  is  laid  bare  and  we 
can  see  how  they  came  into  being. 

Not  only  is  it  well  understood  that  the  gospels  are 
interdependent  among  themselves  :  the  original 
document  underlying  the  synoptic  account  has  been 
deciphered  with  considerable  certainty  and  printed 
both  in  the  Greek  and  in  English/  Variations  from 
this  original  gospel  and  of  the  gospels  among  them- 
selves, together  with  many  curious  phenomena,  such 
as  the  recurrence  of  the  same  words  in  different  con- 
texts, are  accounted  for. 

Very  little  idea,  however,  can  be  given  of  the 
force  of  the  argument,  because  it  is  cumulative.  Its 
cogency  depends  not  upon  a  few,  but  upon  hundreds 
of  observations,  which  altogether  make  the  case  so 
clear  that  no  candid  mind  can  refuse  to  accept  the 
conclusions. 

We  are  here  not  dealing  with  something  intangi- 
ble, a  philosophical  conception,  an  abstruse  idea; 
we  have  to  do  with  a  book,  which  has  had  an  origin 
and  a  history.  All  that  is  claimed  is  something  of 
the  same  conscientiousness  and  patience  in  the  ex- 
amination of  the  words  of  this  book  that  a  Darwin 

'  Prof.  Bernhard  Weiss,  Das  Marcusevangeliu7n ,  etc.,  and  Jolley, 
The  Synoptic  Problem.  It  is  not  claimed  that  the  theory  represented 
by  these  writers  is  in  all  parts  correct  or  that  the  "  original  gospel," 
as  it  is  given,  is  in  every  word  identical  with  the  original  gospel. 

The  subject  seemed  to  call  for  some  reference  in  (he  text  to  the 
methods  of  study,  beyond  a  bald  statement  of  the  results.  Of  course, 
I  have  given  the  briefest  possible  indications  of  these  methods,  along 
the  line  of  w  hicli  I  have  studied  for  many  years. 


236  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

gave  to  the  phenomena  of  Hfe  when  he  was  tracing 
the  laws  of  nature.  If  Darwin  had  only  reasoned 
about  what  God  ought  to  have  done,  he  never  would 
have  accomplished  what  he  did,  but  with  far  more 
reverence  than  many  a  Bible  student  shows  he 
sought  to  find  out  what  God  has  done. 

II.  What  are  the  results  ?  Attention  has  been 
largely  confined  to  the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Here  many  problems  remain  unsolved  and 
the  reconstruction  of  history,  which  has  been  so 
startling,  is  not  yet  fully  carried  through.  In  the 
New  Testament,  also,  there  are  questions  awaiting 
definite  answer.  Probably,  we  shall  never  have  cer- 
tainty upon  many  of  these.  But  we  must  not  allow 
this  fact  to  escape  our  notice :  that  the  criticism  of 
the  New  Testament  has  established  one  result  which 
is  incontestable.  This  result  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant acquisitions  of  human  knowledge  in  modern 
times.  It  is  negative  in  form,  but  it  is  most  posi- 
tive in  the  results  that  flow  from  it.  It  is  the  defi- 
nite destruction  of  the  theory  of  infallibility. 

When  we  speak  of  an  infallible  writing,  we  mean 
that  that  writing  has  been  preserved  by  divine  influ- 
ence from  error,  either  of  any  kind,  or — as  the  limi- 
tation is  now  sometimes  made — error  in  the  religious 
sphere ;  that,  therefore,  we  can  use  this  writing  as  an 
oracle,  the  direct  voice  of  God.  Infallibility,  in 
either  sense,  it  is  impossible  to  ascribe  to  the  New 
Testament. 

It  cannot  be  too  strongly  insisted  upon  that  this 
is  no  longer  an  open  question — except  to  prejudice 


ETHICAL   DETERMINATION   OF    CHRISTIAN    LIFE.       237 

and  ignorance.  We  consider  mathematical  truth  to 
be  the  most  certain  of  all  theoretical  knowledge. 
The  proof  for  the  conclusion  here  set  forth  is  in 
cogency  equal  to  mathematical  proof — for  those 
who  will  study,  not  the  a  priori  possibility  or  pro- 
bability of  any  theory  of  inspiration,  but  the  con- 
tents of  our  New  Testament  and  the  history  of  the 
canon.' 

It  is  a  mercy,  in  which  we  cannot  but  discern  the 
guiding  hand  of  God,  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  is  not  committed  to  any  statement  of  in- 
fallibility. It  is  another  mercy,  for  which  we  are 
devoutly  thankful,  that  the  Church  has  been  led  to 
embody  in  her  constitution  the  one  expression  which 
most  fitly,  most  fully,  as  no  other  word  does,  sums 
up   the    meaning    of   the   Bible    for   the   Christian : 

The  word   of  God."     It  expresses  precisely  what 

'  The  lack  of  precision  in  the  use  of  terms  is  a  most  fruitful  source 
of  misunderstanding  and  confusion  in  theology.  This  is  especially 
true  of  the  terms  *'  infallibility"  and  "  authority."  They  are  often 
used  as  synonymous,  and  he  who  denies  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible 
is  supposed  to  deny  its  authority.  And  yet  in  ordinary  language  the 
terms  are  not  confused.  We  speak  of  the  "  authority"  of  parents. 
But  the  strictest  advocate  of  parental  authority  would  not  claim 
infallibility  for  parents.  So,  we  may  ascribe  to  the  15ible  a  very 
decided  and  high  authority  and  yet  disbelieve  in  its  infallibility. 
And  if  we  thus  discriminate  between  the  terms  we  find  that  the  ques- 
tion of  fallibility  or  infallibility  is  the  crux  of  the  biblical  problem. 
When  we  have  settled  that,  the  question  of  the  Bible  is  settled  with- 
out any  further  words,  and  it  will  be  unnecessary  to  enter  into  detail 
in  regard  to  the  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  a  denial  of  infallibility, 
such  as  that  we  can  be  absolutely  sure  of  no  single  word  or  sentence 
that  it  was  so  uttered  by  Christ  as  we  have  it. 


238  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

we  believe  of  the  Bible.  To  change  the  phrase,  the 
Bible  is  the  word  of  God,  into,  the  Bible  contains 
the  word  of  God,  is  to  change  one  of  the  most 
striking  and  accurate  definitions  ever  given  into  a 
meaningless  formula. 

In  interpreting  the  expression,  we  notice  first  that 
it  is  the  zvord,  not  the  words  ;  this  makes  a  vast 
difference.  Furthermore,  we  must  let  the  Bible 
itself  interpret  the  expression.  St.  Paul  uses  it. 
We  read  in  i  Thess.  ii.  13:  "  For  this  cause  also 
thank  we  God  without  ceasing,  because  when  ye  re- 
ceived the  word  of  God  which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye  re- 
ceived it  not  as  the  word  of  men,  but  as  it  is  in  truth, 
the  word  of  God,  which  effectually  worketh  also  in 
you  that  believe. ' '  Here  the  contrast  is  between  the 
word  of  men  and  the  word  of  God.  There  is  not 
the  slightest  indication,  nor  the  remotest  probability, 
that  St.  Paul  had  in  mind  any  infallibility  as  belong- 
ing to  this  "  word  of  God."  What  did  he  have  in 
mind  ?  One  great  fact :  Salvation  in  Christ,  and 
any  word  which  would  set  before  men  that  one  fact 
was  the  word  of  God.  To  him  it  was  the  message 
of  man's  release  from  bondage  into  the  liberty  of 
Christ.  He  did  not  have  to  enquire  whether  every 
particular  statement  of  that  message  was  true. 

Let  us  take  an  illustration:  A  garrison  is  sur- 
rounded and  besieged.  Many  days  they  have  held 
out ;  the  utmost  distress  prevails.  Suddenly  a  mes- 
senger appears:  he  has  broken  through  the  enemy's 
lines.  He  brings  news  of  relief.  It  means  life  from 
death  to  that   garrison.      Do  we  suppose  they  will 


ETHICAL    DETERMINATION   OF    CHRISTIAN    LIFE       239 

ask  the  messenger  many  inquisitive  questions,  and 
if  he  cannot  tell  them  the  exact  number  of  the  re- 
lieving army,  and  where  it  came  from,  and  the 
names  and  appearance  of  the  officers,  and  the  nature 
of  their  accoutrements,  they  will  not  believe  his 
message  ?  Will  they  concern  themselves  about 
these  trifling  details  when  release  from  sure  death 
is  at  hand  ?  That  was  what  Christianity  was  to  St. 
Paul,  and  the  news  of  that  release  was  the  word  of 
God.  And  when  we  use  St.  Paul's  expression  to 
designate  what  we  understand  the  Bible  to  be,  we 
mean  that  it  is  the  message  of  salvation  from  God 
to  mankind.  We  cannot  think  it  strange  that  the 
message  comes  to  us  in  imperfect  form,  for  the  mes- 
sengers after  all  were  men  and  fallible,  but  we  none 
the  less  accept  their  message  as  "  the  word  of 
God." 

III.  So  far  the  results.  There  remains  something 
to  be  said  about  the  bearings  of  these  results.  One 
cannot  dwell  long  upon  these  reflections  without  be- 
ing forcibly  struck  with  the  greatness  of  the  contrast 
between  St.  Paul's  use  of  the  expression  "  word  of 
God  "  and  what  the  expression  came  to  mean  in 
later  ages.  The  spirit  of  St.  Paul  went  out  of  the 
Church,  and  the  "  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath 
made  us  free  "  was  no  longer  understood  and  valued. 
The  "  word  of  God  "  lost  its  meaning  as  the  mes- 
sage of  man's  salvation,  and  it  became  "  the  words 
of  God."  As  such  it  stood  for  the  sum  of  all  the 
sentences  in  the  Bible.  This  carried  with  it  the  be- 
lief that  God  had  sent  to  man,  not  the  message  of 


240  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

redemption,  but  an  oracle,  in  which  all  parts  were 
of  equal  value  as  coming  direct  from  the  divine 
author.  It  was  a  radical  departure  from  the  view  of 
St.  Paul,  and  such  a  departure  as  he  would  have 
been  the  first  to  deplore.  For  it  was  a  relapse  into 
the  spirit  of  that  narrow  Judaism  against  which  he 
fought  so  persistently.  It  was  the  revival  of  the 
law;  it  put  law  once  more  into  the  central  place  of 
religion.  The  very  essence  of  the  new  religion  was 
that  it  came  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  con- 
tained in  the  old.  So  Christ  understood  it,  and 
therefore  he  was  always  calling  men  to  believe  in 
him.  So  St.  Paul  understood  it;  to  him  the  gospel 
meant  just  one  thing:  Christ  has  lived  and  died  to 
save  man,  to  bring  him  to  God.  The  new  interpre- 
tation of  the  "  word  of  God  "  made  the  gospel 
mean  something  entirely  different.  Instead  of  one 
simple  truth,  it  was  a  thousand  things  that  men 
were  required  to  believe.  The  character  of  Christ- 
ianity was  changed.  Not  Christ,  but  the  Bible, 
became  the  mediator  between  God  and  man.  The 
answer  to  the  soul  craving  peace  was  not  the  mes- 
sage of  one  who  lived  and  died  for  man,  but  an 
atomistic  law  of  infinitely  diversified  aspect.  Law 
and  gospel  have  always  been  used  as  terms  of  mutu- 
ally exclusive  antithesis,  and  the  Christian  gospel  is 
held  to  mark  a  higher  level  of  religion  than  the  law; 
therefore  the  altered  conception  of  Christianity, 
which  is  distinguished  by  the  atomistic  legal  view  of 
the  Bible,  denotes  a  distinct  retrogression  to  a  lower 
level  of  religion. 


ETHICAL   DETERMINATION    OF    CHRISTIAN    LIFE.       241 

One  feels  the  obligation  to  deal  very  conscien- 
tiously with  an  opinion  which  has  held  its  ground  so 
persistently  and  to  measure  words  carefully  in  judg- 
ing it.  But  whoever  has  made  himself  acquainted 
with  the  facts  in  question,  who  realises  what  the 
bearings  of  the  traditional  theory  of  Bible  authority 
are,  who  is  in  a  position  to  measure  the  influence  of 
this  theory  upon  religious  life  and  character,  can 
hardly  doubt  that  it  represents  one  of  the  most  seri- 
ous aberrations  of  Christianity  that  is  to  be  met  with 
in  the  course  of  its  history. 

What  has  been  said  about  the  relapse  from  the 
gospel  to  the  law  may  be  held  to  be  an  exaggeration. 
It  will  be  maintained  that  those  who  hold  most 
strongly  to  the  infallibility  of  the  Scriptures  insist 
no  less  strenuously  upon  the  redemption  by  Christ. 
This  is  true.  But  one  of  these  truths  must  be  funda- 
mental. They  cannot,  and  they  do  not,  exist  side  by 
side;  they  are  not  held  independently  the  one  of  the 
other,  as  two  equally  important  truths.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  belief  in  the  Bible  is  the  first.  Here  lies 
the  gravamen  of  the  matter.  Belief  in  the  Bible  is 
fundamental;  belief  in  Christ  depends  upon  belief 
in  the  Bible — not  in  the  sense  in  which  this  is  neces- 
sarily true  of  every  belief  in  Christ,  namely,  that  it 
rests  upon  credence  given  to  the  New  Testament  as 
historical  documents,  just  as  we  believe  any  other 
facts  upon  the  evidence  given.  Belief  in  Christ, 
according  to  this  view,  depends  upon  belief  in  the 
infalHbility  of  the  Bible;  we  must  first  believe  that 
every  word  is  true — so  many  oracles  of  God.     There- 


242  THE   KINGDOM   OF    GOD. 

fore  belief  in  the  Bible  is  the  first  article  in  this  creed 
— and  this  is  a  relapse  into  Judaism. 

That  this  is  a  correct  description  of  a  good  deal  of 
our  popular  Christianity  is  evident  to  those  who  have 
given  any  attention  to  the  popular  as  distinguished 
from  the  theological  form  of  belief.  The  latter  at- 
tempts to  hold  both  the  Bible  and  Christ  at  an  equal 
level ;  in  the  popular  religion  the  Bible  is  far  above 
Christ.  The  extent  to  which  the  cause  of  Christianity 
is  in  the  popular  mind  bound  up  with  the  very  letter 
of  our  English  version  comes  to  us  occasionally  with 
a  startling  shock  ;  as  for  instance,  at  the  late  revision 
of  the  Bible.  A  curious  instance  of  the  perseverance 
of  the  doctrine  of  biblical  infallibility  is  afforded  by 
one  of  the  latest  of  modern  "  religions  " — that  of 
Tolstoi.  He  has  no  pity  for  the  essential  doctrines 
of  Christianity ;  he  throws  to  the  winds  the  belief  in 
Christ  as  we  understand  it ;  but  the  traditional  view 
of  the  Bible  is  too  strong  even  for  this  revolutionist 
to  break  through,  and  all  unconsciously  he  builds  his 
entire  system  upon  it. 

There  is  a  remarkable  parallel  between  the  Jewish 
Pharisaism  and  this  phase  of  Christianity.  Slavery 
to  the  letter  produced  in  both  cases  the  same  conse- 
quences: slavery  to  the  past,  the  stiffening  of  re- 
ligion into  inflexible  rigour  and  the  numbness  of 
conscience  to  present  issues.  Jesus  found  the  bit- 
terest opposition  not  from  outside,  but  from  religion 
itself;  and  if  the  spirit  of  Christ,  which  in  these  cen- 
turies has  been  active  in  emancipating  man  from  one 
and  another  form  of  servitude  and  so  has  led  to  a 


ETHICAL    DETEliMIXATIOX   OF    CHRISTIAN    LIFE.       243 

higher  civiHsation,  has  often  met  with  the  stoutest 
opposition  from  those  who  stood  as  the  representa- 
tives of  his  rehgion,  it  has  been  because  Christianity 
like  Judaism  had  largely  degenerated  into  bibliolatry. 
It  is  not,  therefore,  in  the  interests  of  a  so-called 
liberality  "  that  we  reject  the  treatment  of  the 
Bible  as  an  infallible  oracle,  but  because,  being 
utterly  baseless,  that  view  is  to-day  the  most  fruit- 
ful cause  of  infidelity  and  one  of  the  most  serious 
obstacles  to  the  advancement  of  the  kingdom  of 
God. 

We  were  led  into  this  discussion,  partly  to  state 
and  justify  the  foundation  upon  which  the  argument 
has  proceeded,  but  mainly  to  find  an  answer  to  the 
question :  What  is  the  final  authority  in  Christian 
ethics  ?  We  have  found  that  the  theoi*y  which 
ascribes  infallible  authority  to  the  Bible  is  untenable 
and  mischievous.  This  is  a  negative  answer.  We 
must  now  proceed  to  find  the  positive  answer  to  our 
question,  and  for  this  purpose  we  turn  to  Christ. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  what  he  recognized  as  the 
final  authority:  **  My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him 
that  sent  me. ' '  The  one  deepest  principle  of  his  life 
was  obedience  to  the  Father;  he  was  ever  listening 
to  the  divine  voice;  that  was  his  guide.  So,  too,  he 
taught  his  disciples  to  look  above  for  guidance.  In 
the  last  discourse  his  words  were  about  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  about  prayer:  "  Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask 
the  Father  in  my  name,  he  will  give  it  you  "  (St. 
John,  xvi.  23).  With  such  prophecies  and  promises 
are  intermingled  other  words  which  refer  to  himself: 


244  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

"  I  am  with  you  ahvay,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world  "  (St.  Matt,  xxviii.  20).  And  we  must  not 
forget  how  often  he  recurs  to  the  subject  of  prayer: 
he  taught  his  disciples  to  pray ;  he  told  them  of 
God's  care  for  them;  he  taught  them  to  go  to  God 
as  to  a  father  who  could  give  only  good  things  to 
his  sons;  he  instructed  them  to  importune  God  in 
prayer. 

In  this  teaching  we  recognise  that  truth  which  the 
old  theologies  embodied  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
"  in  statu  exaltationis. "  It  is  the  truth  that  Christ- 
ianity is  not  only  a  memory  but  a  present  fact ;  that 
the  king  still  lives;  that  there  is  an  infallible  author- 
ity— God  in  heaven — who  is  accessible,  who  has 
promised  to  hear  prayer  and  to  be  our  guide.  Is  it 
not  right  that  the  truth  of  the  headship  of  Christ  in 
his  Church  should  be  brought  out  from  the  obscurity 
into  which  it  has  fallen  ?  The  kingdom  of  God  is  the 
greatest  fact  of  history ;  every  step  of  man  towards  a 
higher,  fuller  realisation  of  his  destiny  is  a  step  tow- 
ards the  consummation  of  the  kingdom  of  God ;  the 
secular  coincides  with  the  religious  ideal,  and  the  hu- 
man race  is  seen  to  be  moving  forward  in  fulfilment  of 
the  end  that  Christ  foresaw  and  in  obedience  to  the 
laws  which  he  set  in  operation.  And  the  founder 
and  leader  of  that  kingdom  is  not  a  dimly-seen  figure 
speaking  to  us  from  the  distant  past  through  the 
medium  of  a  book,  but  a  present  power,  a  guide, 
who  cannot  and  will  not  leave  his  work  incomplete. 

It  must  not  be  thought  that  this  truth  does  away 
with  the  Bible;  very  far  from  it.      But  it  does  make 


ETHICAL    DETERMINATIOX   OF   CHKISTIAX    LIFE.       245 

the  greatest  difference  whether  we  recognise  Christ 
first  and  the  Bible  because  of  Christ,  or  the  reverse. 
If  Christ  is  first,  then  our  faith  does  not  depend  upon 
the  exact  truth  of  every  word  of  the  Scriptures;  but 
it  may  still  be  "  a  lamp  unto  our  feet,  and  a  light 
unto  our  path."  We  reverence  it,  though  it  is  to 
us  only  a  means  to  an  end.  We  learn  to  believe  that 
God  has  designed  the  preservation  of  the  book  for 
us  and  that  it  contains  what  is  essentially  a  faithful 
picture  of  the  life  of  the  Saviour.  Therefore  we  use 
it  for  our  edification ;  but  we  recognise  no  truth  that 
runs  contrary  to  that  other  revelation  of  God  in 
heart  and  conscience.  God's  living  voice  is  supreme. 
We  believe  that  God  speaks  to  each  individual.  We 
hear  him,  sometimes  in  the  earthquake,  sometimes 
in  the  fire,  but  most  often  in  the  still  small  voice. 
The  Christian's  last  court  of  appeal  is  neither  the 
Bible,  nor  the  pope,  nor  a  supposed  inner  light,  but 
God  in  heaven. 

A  great  deal  is  said  against  "  private  judgment." 
It  is  maintained  that  the  regulation  of  the  Christian 
life  must  not  be  left  to  private  judgment.  There  is  a 
certain  justice  in  the  objection.  The  danger  is  that 
cur  own  caprice  will  be  taken  for  God's  will.  This 
delusion  has  led  to  many  excesses  in  the  history 
of  the  Christian  Church.  But  these  excesses  have 
been  owing,  not  to  the  use,  but  to  a  gross  abuse  of 
private  judgment.  The  mistake  has  been  in  con- 
fusing two  things:  God's  will,  and  the  manifestation 
of  that  will  in  heart  and  conscience.  The  abuses  of 
individual  caprice  are  impossible  where  the  distinc- 


246  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOi). 

tion  is  kept  in  view,  where  the  man  holds  before 
his  mind  God's  will  as  separate  from  his  own,  and 
humbly  listens  for  the  manifestation  of  that  will. 

Under  another  aspect,  the  objection  to  private 
judgment  is  senseless.  If  man  is  hot  to  use  his 
judgment,  then  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should 
believe  in  Christianity  any  more  than  in  Buddhism, 
or  Atheism,  or  anything  else  that  another  tells  him 
to  believe  in.  To  try  to  get  away  from  private 
judgment  as  the  last  appeal  to  the  only  faculty  that 
any  human  being  ever  had  by  which  to  rule  his  con- 
duct is  a  thoughtless  absurdity. 

The  lust  of  infallibility  is  the  common  mark  of 
weak  minds  and  has  in  our  own  generation  led 
many  to  listen  to  the  siren-voice  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  But  those  who  understand  God's  intention 
in  regard  to  man,  not  that  he  should  be  coddled 
into  comfortable  security,  but  that  by  the  discipline 
of  a  faith  in  the  unseen  and  eternal  he  should  grow 
into  approved,  independent,  virile  character;  who 
recognise  character,  not  safety  against  an  angry 
Deity,  to  be  the  end  of  religion,  will  find  no  allure- 
ment in  a  claim  which  pretends  to  share  in  the  alone 
infallible  authority  of  Almighty  God.  Whoever 
makes  such  a  claim  makes  it  not  in  the  spirit  of 
Christ,  but  in  the  spirit  of  the  world. 

We  therefore  recognise  God  as  the  ultimate  au- 
thority for  our  ethical  life.  We  believe  that  God 
speaks  to  us  through  our  conscience,  our  reason,  and 
also  through  the  Bible  rationally  used.     And  in  this 


ETHICAL    DETERMINATION    OF    CHRISTIAN    LIFE.      247 

fact,  that  the  Christian's  last  authority  is  not  a  rigid 
rule,  but  a  living  God,  we  have  an  explanation  of 
what  otherwise  would  seem  an  anomaly  in  the 
Christian  religion :  the  variableness  of  its  ethics. 
What  appears  as  a  defect  is  in  reality  an  evidence  of 
the  divine  character  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  As  man 
becomes  more  receptive  and  more  capable  of  under- 
standing the  truth,  the  Christian  ideal  becomes 
higher.  The  truth  in  God  remains  the  same ;  only 
man  varies.  To-day  he  has  a  deeper  insight  into  the 
truth  than  he  had  a  thousand  years  ago ;  therefore 
the  ethical  standard  is  so  much  higher,  the  concep- 
tion of  Christian  character  is  so  much  fuller.  New 
light  is  ever  pouring  in  upon  man.  God  uses  every 
means  to  reveal  truth  to  him :  science,  literature ; 
even  war,  famine,  pestilence ;  the  genius  of  great 
men,  the  institutions  of  the  state  and  philanthropy, 
the  patient  research  of  the  scholar,  the  intuition  of 
poet  and  seer :  all  and  every  one  of  these  forces  tend 
to  make  his  moral  sight  clearer  and  to  reveal  to  him 
more  of  the  eternal  law  of  God. 

We  can  see,  as  we  look  over  the  Christian  cen- 
turies, how  different  ages  mark  different  steps  in 
that  fuller  realisation  of  Christian  truth.  The  first 
age  of  the  Church  was  the  age  of  the  martyrs,  and 
the  resignation  and  willingness  to  suffer,  virtues 
which  the  circumstances  of  that  time  called  forth, 
have  remained  to  this  day  indelibly  stamped  upon 
the  Christian  character. 

It  may,  indeed,  be  questioned  whether  that  par- 
ticular element  of  character  which  was  produced  in 


248  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

the  age  of  martyrs  has  not  maintained  too  exclusive 
prominence  in  our  ideas  of  Christian  manhood. 
The  conception  of  the  Christian  saint  is  still  pre- 
eminently one  who  suffers.  It  is  formed  upon  the 
ideal  of  him  who  "  was  brought  as  a  lamb  to  the 
slaughter,"  who  "  when  he  was  reviled,  reviled 
not  again."  The  preponderating  influence  of  the 
martyr-type  obscures  other  elements  in  the  character 
of  Christ  and  effects  a  certain  onesidedness  of  Christ- 
ian ideal.  The  sainthood  of  resignation  is  still  held 
in  higher  honour  than  the  sainthood  of  action. 

As  we  follow  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church 
from  the  first  beginnings  we  observe  a  continually  en- 
larging Christian  ideal.  Its  steps  are  marked  by  the 
care  of  the  sick  and  the  poor,  in  which  Christian 
sympathy  found  its  earliest  expression ;  by  the  intel- 
lectual enthusiasm  of  the  Renaissance,  which  has  left 
an  indelible  mark  upon  the  life  of  the  Church;  by 
the  rise  of  the  modern  state,  which  bears  perhaps  the 
strongest  testimony  of  all  to  the  influence  of  Christ- 
ian ideals ;  by  the  re-awakening  of  missionary  en- 
thusiasm. 

In  our  time  we  are  witnessing  a  change  in  the 
accepted  views  of  life  slowly  coming  over  Christen- 
dom, the  effect  of  Christ's  teaching  of  the  value  of 
the  individual.  We  see  in  the  wonderful  system  of 
modern  philanthropy,  in  the  devotion  with  which 
men  with  no  expectation  of  reward  are  giving  their 
best  efforts  for  the  welfare  and  happiness  of  their 
fellowmen,  signs  that  our  ethical  conceptions  are 
being  enlarged.      We   recognise   this    in    the  most 


ETHICAL    DETERMINATION   OF    CHRISTIAN   LIFE.      249 

striking  social  phenomenon  of  our  time,  that  great 
movement  extending  to  every  Christian  land,  which 
constitutes  what  we  call  "the  social  problem."  We 
cannot  fail  to  note  the  connection  between  all  the 
various  phases  of  this  agitation,  by  whatever  name 
they  call  themselves,  from  Russian  Nihilism  to  the 
mildest  form  of  Christian  Socialism.  And,  what- 
ever we  may  think  of  it ;  however  we  may  deplore 
the  excesses  to  which  it  has  led ;  however  severely 
we  may  condemn  the  blindness  of  those  who  are 
looking  to  a  revolution  as  the  condition  of  a  better 
future,  and  the  light-hearted  manner  in  which  igno- 
rance meddles  with  economic  principles  which 
specialists  have  to  work  hard  to  master:  still  we 
cannot  fail  to  recognise  that  the  secret  spring  of  this 
world-wide  movement  is  the  recognition  of  the  truth 
taught  by  Christ  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  of  the 
value  of  the  human  soul  simply  because  it  is  human. 
We  must  take  the  evil  with  the  good ;  every  break- 
ing forth  of  the  stream  of  human  progress  has  its 
eddying  backward  currents.  The  life  of  to-day  with 
its  intense  energy  is  just  as  much  a  product  of  Christ- 
ianity on  its  dark  as  on  its  bright  side.  And  the 
truth  of  the  infinite  value  of  the  human  soul,  with 
its  corollary,  the  equality  of  all  men  before  God, 
may  manifest  itself  in  rough  ways;  but  the  incen- 
diarism of  anarchy  as  well  as  the  devotion  of 
philanthropy  are  signs  that  a  new  idea  is  taking 
hold  of  Christendom.  They  are  the  birth-throes  of 
a  larger  conception  of  Christian  character. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
THE   KINGDOM   OF  GOD  AND    THE   STATE. 

^  Expansion  is  the  law  of  Christian  ethics.  This 
expansion  is  more  striking  in  our  day  than  it  ever 
was.  The  "  enthusiasm  of  humanity  "  has  touched 
Christianity  with  aspirations  for  a  more  ChristHke 
life,  and  is  filling  out  the  ideal  of  Christian  manhood. 
We  are  learning  to  know  Christ  better  and  there  is 
being  formed  a  higher  conception  of  the  Christian. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  we  most  clearly  see  the 
connection  between  Christian  doctrine  and  Christian 
ethics.  The  doctrine  of  biblical  infallibility,  in  itself 
untrue  and  a  denial  of  the  authority  of  Christ,  has 
clouded  the  ideas  of  right  and  wrong.  It  has 
judaised  Christianity  by  setting  law  in  the  central 
place  of  religion,  and  in  so  doing  it  has  obscured 
and  perverted  the  very  fundamental  and  essential 
principle  of  Christian  morality.  It  has  blinded  the 
eyes  of  men  to  the  highest  distinction  of  Christ's 
teaching.  It  has  dwarfed  and  distorted  the  Christ- 
ian ideal.  It  has  changed  that  which  came  into  the 
world  as  a  command  into  a  prohibition.  It. has  put 
the  negative  for  the   positive. 

When  Christianity  shall  at  last  have  freed  itself 
from  Jewish  legalism,  returned  to  Christ,  and  come 


THE   KINGDOM    OF    GOD   AND    THE    STATE.         251 

to  a  clearer  appreciation  of  the  liberty  of  the  gospel, 
then  the  negative  conception  of  Christian  ethics  will 
make  way  for  a  truer  appreciation  of  the  possibilities 
of  Christian  character.  The  conception  of  Christian 
duty  has  been  largely  of  what  we  are  not  to  do ;  a 
deeper  insight  will  bring  with  it  this  insistent  appeal 
to  the  conscience :  What  as  a  Christian  am  I  bound  / 
to  do?  When  the  law  holds  the  central  place  in  re- 
ligion, religious  duty  exhausts  itself  in  a  struggle 
against  doing  wrong.  The  very  essence  and  high 
prerogative  of  Christianity  is  that  it  leads  us  out  of 
that  prison-house.  Over  against  the  prohibition 
"thou  shalt  not"  it  sets  the  command :  "  Thou  shalt 
love  God  and  thy  neighbour."  It  lifts  man  out  of 
the  brooding,  morbid  self-contemplation,  where  the 
energies  of  the  soul  are  bent  upon  watching  against 
sin,  where  the  mind  becomes  entangled  in  hopeless 
casuistry  and  the  best  part  of  the  man,  his  aspira- 
tions, are  stifled,  into  the  purer  atmosphere  of 
Christian  duty,  where  the  heart  is  filled  and  the  evil 
spirit  does  not  find  it  empty,  swept,  and  garnished, 
where  sin  and  wrong-doing  are  conquered  by  the 
desire  and  the  recognised  duty  of  doing  right. 
When  a  man  learns  to  put  Christ  above  law,  then  v 
he  understands  that  Christian  ethics  is  a  positive 
command,  that  only  by  doing  the  will  of  God  shall 
he  know  whether  the  doctrine  is  true ;  that  he  shall 
be  saved,  not  by  standing  still  and  looking  on  and 
selfishly  thinking  only  of  keeping  his  hands  clean, 
but  by  taking  up  arms  in  the  warfare  of  life,  by  de-  ^ 
livering  good,  honest  blows  for  right  and  truth. 


252  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

This  is  what  we  are  coming  to  recognise,  the  new 
light  that  Christianity  is  gaining  in  our  own  age: 
the  Christian  ideal  is  a  positive,  aggressive  ideal. 
In  place  of  the  terror  of  the  law,  there  is  a  new  mo- 
tive :  the  sense  of  responsibility.  I  am  here  not  for 
myself,  not  even  to  save  my  own  soul;  I  dare  not 
live  my  life  for  my  own  selfish  gratification,  not 
even  if,  like  the  anchorite  of  old,  I  spend  my  time 
in  the  wilderness  or  in  a  cave  fighting  the  devil — a 
,  refined  selfishness.  I  am  placed  here  to  do  my  part 
of  the  world's  work,  to  fulfill  that  duty  which  God 
assigns  to  me  in  the  working  out  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  This  is  the  bond  that  is  to  unite  men  in  the 
brotherhood  of  one  common  purpose,  this  the  end 
set  to  the  Christian  aspiration.  Christianity  draws 
men  out ;  it  touches  the  spring  which  is  the  strongest 
motive  power  in  the  human  breast :  the  aspiration 
of  the  soul  for  the  high  and  pure,  the  desire  for  that 
which  is  better,  the  longing  for  an  ideal : 

"  We  needs  must  love  the  highest  when  we  see  it." 

Often  and  often  that  longing  has  been  mis- 
directed. We  recognise  it  in  mediaeval  monasticism, 
in  the  enthusiasm  of  the  crusades,  and  in  modern 
social  movements.  However  misapplied,  it  is  a  deep- 
seated  desire  for  a  something  beyond  and  above. 
It  is  this  longing,  this  power  of  enthusiasm,  this 
aspiration,  which  Christ  takes  hold  of,  directs,  and 
guides  into  the  fulfilment  of  God's  will.  Whoever 
remains  untouched  by  some  breath  of  this  aspiration, 
whoever  stays  imprisoned  in  the  spiritual  thraldom 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  AND  THE  STATE.    253 

of  the  letter,  and  persists  in  groping  about  among 
negative  conceptions  where  sin  always  means  some 
wrong  done,  but  never  the  good  left  undone :  he 
remains  a  stranger  to  the  true  spirit  of  Christianity. 

The  law  of  positive  duty,  of  a  personal  responsi- 
bility for  something  to  be  done,  is  the  essential 
ethical  principle  of  Christianity  in  distinction  from 
Judaism.  And  with  this  great  principle  there  comes 
its  necessary  corollary:  the  law  of  proportional  re- 
sponsibility. In  the  parable  of  the  talents,  the  les- 
son is  not  that  all  should  bring  the  same  amount, 
but  that  each  should  do  according  to  his  ability,  and 
the  man  that  brought  but  two  talents  received  equal 
praise  with  him  who  brought  the  five.  Every  man 
is  responsible  in  proportion  to  what  he  has  received, 
or  as  Christ  expresses  it,  in  words  which  this  genera- 
tion would  do  well  to  heed  and  ponder:  "  Unto 
whomsoever  much  is  given,  of  him  shall  be  much  re- 
quired "  (St.  Luke,  xii.  48). 

Just  here  we  have  still  most  to  learn.  In  that 
blending  of  tones  which  should  form  the  harmony 
of  the  Christian  character,  this  one  note  is  still 
missed.  True,  there  are  many  who,  gifted  with 
many  talents,  are  striving  to  the  best  of  their  ability 
that  their  last  account  may  be  a  good  one,  recog- 
nising the  superior  responsibility  which  superior  gifts 
bring  with  them,  and  they  are  rightly  esteemed  as 
the  noblest  exponents  of  Christianity.  But  that 
principle  of  proportional  responsibility  has  not  yet 
entered  as  an  element  into  the  common  popular  esti- 
mation of  character.     The  most  finished  production 


254  THE    KINGDOM  OF   GOD. 

of  eighteen  hundred  years  of  Christianity  is  the 
Christian  gentleman.  The  Christian  gentleman  must 
be  pure,  courteous,  high-minded,  generous.  But 
the  Christian  gentleman  is  a  very  negative  character. 
The  popular  conception  has  not  yet  risen  to  the 
height  of  the  Christian  ideal.  The  Christian  gentle- 
man must  do  no  wrong;  but  it  is  not  demanded  of 
him  that  he  should  be  aggressively  good.  There  is 
a  note  left  out.  The  positive  side  of  Christianity, 
the  sense  of  proportional  responsibility,  of  a  duty 
which  is  so  much  greater  because  of  the  many  gifts : 
this  is  largely  or  wholly  unrepresented  in  the  highest 
conception  popularly  formed  of  Christian  character. 
The  Christian  gentleman  is  what  his  name  denotes, 
a  gentle  creature ;  that  is  a  high  virtue,  but  Christ- 
ianity demands  something  more  virile,  more  ener- 
getic, more  positive. 

Here  then  we  may  expect  a  forward  movement  in 
Christian  ethical  conception.  What  has  been  ac- 
complished by  Christianity  is  truly  wonderful.  It 
has  substituted  for  the  ancient  ideal  of  manhood  a 
pattern  which  the  Greek  or  Roman  would  have 
laughed  to  scorn.  But  it  will  do  much  more.  It 
will  fill  out  that  ideal.  The  light  of  God  which 
never  ceases  to  shine  will  enlarge  men's  conceptions. 
Christianity  will  build  up  its  own  pattern  into  nobler 
proportions.  The  Christian  gentleman  of  the  future 
will  be  one  who  has  within  him  the  true  spirit  of 
chivaliy,  the  spirit  which  makes  men  strong  to  do 
battle  for  right  and  justice.  In  the  coming  genera- 
tions no  man  will  be  able  to  lay  claim  to  the  proud 


THE    KINGDO:\t    OF   GOD    AND    THE    STATE.        255 

title  of  gentleman,  who  wastes  his  time  either  in 
trivial  amusements  or  respectable  idleness ;  who, 
whatever  his  courtesy  or  refinement,  is  a  mere 
drone  in  society;  who  does  not  remember  that  what 
he  calls  his  own  is  God's,  and  only  given  him  that 
he  should  use  it  wisely  for  himself  and  his  fellow- 
men.  No  man  will  be  accounted  a  gentleman  who 
does  not  do  his  part  of  the  world's  work,  any  more 
than  to-day  a  man  is  called  a  gentleman  who  would 
strike  a  woman. 

Human  customs  and  institutions  in  an  imperfect 
way  often  embody  Christian  ideas.  And  herein 
they  illustrate  both  the  unquenchable  aspirations  of 
humanity,  and  man's  weakness  in  realising  these 
aspiratiotis.  So  we  trace  in  one  historic  institution 
a  foreshadowing  of  that  Christian  sense  of  responsi- 
bility which  is  now  beginning  to  affect  the  popular 
estimation  of  character.  When  you  have  stripped 
the  idea  of  aristocracy  of  its  adventitious  elements, 
the  pride  of  birth,  of  power,  position,  wealth  ; — what 
remains  as  its  kernel  is  the  Christian  idea  of  propor- 
tional responsibility.  Aristocracy,  so  far  as  it  has 
real  meaning  and  value,  is  an  attempt  at  embodying 
in  actual  fact  the  Christian  principle  that  the  more 
a  man  has,  so  much  the  more  he  owes.  Hence  the 
French  saying:  noblesse  oblige.^  It  is  no  foolish 
dream — for  it  is  already  in  process  of  realisation — 
that  Christianity  in  America,  where  we  are  freed 
from  the  prescriptive  conventional  glamour  of  birth 
or  title,  shall  produce  a  purer  aristocracy,  whose  onh' 

'  Compare  the  Prince  of  Wales's  motto  :   "  Ich  dien." 


256  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

title  is  that  a  man  makes  return  in  service  according 
to  what  God  has  given  him ;  whose  distinction  is  the 
consciousness  that  every  blessing  of  God,  good 
parents,  education,  position,  wealth,  and  Christian 
privileges,  adds  just  so  much  more  to  responsibility, 
and  where  the  sense  of  a  duty  owed  becomes  the  in- 
spiring motive  of  life. 

The  two  principles  which  I  have  here  endeavoured 
to  emphasise  as  characterising  that  enlargement  of 
Christian  ethical  conceptions  which  is  taking  place — 
a  positive  as  distinguished  from  a  negative  morality, 
and  a  responsibility  proportioned  to  individual  gifts 
and  advantages — will  be  found  to  have  an  immediate 
application  to  the  great  problems  which  are  at  pres- 
ent agitating  the  civilised  world.  First  of  these  is 
the  so-called  '*  social  question." 

I  have  already  spoken  of  the  present  universal 
social  agitation  and  unrest  as  a  phenomenon  which 
has  the  closest  connection  with  Christianity,  It  is 
not  surprising,  therefore,  that  we  find  the  Church 
absorbed  in  the  keenest  interest  for  this  movement 
and  a  very  widespread  sympathy  for  its  objects. 

It  is  true  that  we  have  to  deplore  a  frequent  lack 
of  discrimination  on  the  part  of  the  Church  and 
especially  the  clergy,  who  are  inclined  to  go  beyond 
the  sphere  which  is  properly  theirs  and  trespass 
upon  a  domain  where  they  are  not  at  home  and 
where  their  well-intentioned  ignorance  is  often  the 
cause  of  great  mischief.  Economics  and  theology  are 
mutually  exclusive  departments  of  human   knowl- 


THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD    AND   THE   STATE.        257 

edge;  and  when  the  representative  of  rehgion  pro- 
nounces judgment  upon  such  questions  as  wages, 
the  influence  of  trusts,  etc.,  he  is  Hable  to  expose 
himself  to  the  ridicule  of  the  trained  economist,  who 
has  devoted  years  of  exclusive  study  to  these  prob- 
lems and  who  has  learned  reverence  for  the  laws 
governing  the  social  relations,  which  the  theologian 
is  apt  to  overlook  in  light-hearted  unconsciousness. 
The  socialistically-tinged  Christianity  of  our  day 
is  from  one  point  of  view  a  most  encouraging  sign. 
As  such  it  represents  a  timely  revolt  from  what 
Matthew  Arnold  called 

"  The  barren  optimistic  sophistries 
Of  comfortable  moles." 

It  shows  that  the  Church  is  still  quick  to  respond  to 

the  wants  of  the  time,  that  it  has  a  feeling  for  that 

aspiration  which  is  the  legitimate  moving  power  of 

the  universal  social  movement.      For  there  can  be 

no  doubt  that  the  object  of  socialism  is  a  noble  one, 

and  one  which  closely  coincides  with  the  Christian 

ideal,  and  that  the  present  unrest  does  point  to  a 

radical  wrong  in  the  relationship  between  men.     But, 

in  the  lack  of  perception  of  the  true  nature  of  the 

wrong,  by  the  w^ant  of  discrimination  in  the  use  of 

means  to  right   the   wrong,    socialistic   Christianity 

threatens  to  become  a  grave  danger,  and  to  work 

incalculable  harm  to  the  cause  of  the  poor  which  it 

has  espoused. 

What  we  see  going  on  is,  indeed,  nothing  less  than 

a  recrudescence  of  the  old  conflict  between  religion 
17 


258  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

and  science.  Science  showed  that  the  sudden  crea- 
tions and  rapid  transformations  which  rehgion,  for- 
saking her  proper  sphere,  had  postulated  were 
impossible,  that  God  works  with  the  utmost  slow- 
ness and  deliberation  by  immutable  laws  towards 
his  end.  A  new  science  has  shown  the  same  de- 
liberation, the  same  immutability,  in  another  sphere, 
in  the  working  of  economic  laws  towards  the  eleva- 
tion of  mankind.  And  again  representatives  of  re- 
ligion rebel  against  that  slowness  and  immutability. 
But  the  new  conflict  will  react  much  more  harmfully 
upon  religion  than  the  old. 

It  is,  however,  becoming  increasingly  evident  that 
the  solution  of  the  great  social  question  must  be 
sought  in  the  moral  sphere  and  can  only  be  reached 
by  improvement  in  character.  Here  is  the  Church's 
opportunity.  But  she  must  stand  on  her  own 
ground  and  not  meddle  where  she  is  an  intruder. 
Christianity  has  a  message  for  the  social  wants  of 
our  day,  and  if  I  might  venture  a  prediction,  1 
should  say  that  the  key  to  the  situation  will  be 
found  in  the  Christian  principle  of  proportional  re- 
sponsibility: **  Unto  whomsoever  much  is  given,  of 
him  shall  be  much  required." 

The  other  great  problem  with  which  the  Church 
stands  in  closest  relations  is  that  of  the  state. 

We  cannot  but  recognise  the  guiding  hand  of 
Providence  in  that  process  by  which  the  laws  of 
human  partnership  have  been  evolved  from  the 
earliest  time  to  the  present :  the  tribe,  the  monarchy, 


THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD    AND    THE    STATE.        2o9 

the  empire,  the  modern  state.  The  last  in  the  line 
of  development,  the  state  as  we  know  it  represents 
a  new  principle  in  the  social  life.  Arising  out  of 
the  break-up  of  the  Roman  Empire,  the  modern 
state  came  on  the  scene  when  the  leaven  of  Christ- 
ianity had  permeated  the  masses  and  had  given 
reality  to  the  ethical  life.  It  is  this  ethical  life, 
possible  only  through  Christianity,  that  in  turn 
made  possible  the  modern  state.  And  the  state  is 
the  great  ethical  problem  of  our  day. 

John  Stuart  Mill,  in  his  essay  on  Liberty,  charges 
Christianity  with  a  defect  in  failing  to  provide  rules 
for.  the  Christian's  duty  to  the  state.  The  charge 
witnesses  to  a  misunderstanding  of  the  true  nature  of 
Christianity.  For  the  very  distinction  of  our  religion 
is  that  it  provides  no  rules  for  individual  cases — how 
could  Christ  make  rules  for  a  condition  of  things 
which  was  not  then  present,  of  which  his  disciples 
could  have  no  faintest  conception  ? — but  that  it 
establishes  the  fundamental  principle  of  ethics  and 
implants  in  men  the  moral  imperative  to  make  the 
application  of  that  principle  to  each  new  condition. 
But  there  is  a  certain  justice  in  the  charge,  if  it  is 
taken  as  directed,  not  against  the  religion,  but 
against  the  representatives  of  the  religion.  For 
perhaps  the  most  serious  ethical  defect  of  our 
modern  Christianity  is  that  it  fails  to  realise  its  own 
sponsorship  for  the  state. 

There  have  been  at  various  times  efforts  to  shape 
the  national  life  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  Christ. 
But  the  mediaeval  papacy  and    Puritanism,    which 


y  V 


260  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

stand  as  the  most  noted  representatives  of  these 
efforts,  embody  a  principle  thoroughly  different 
from  that  which  we  to-day  recognise  as  embodied 
in  the  state.  The  highest  conception  to  which 
these  systems  attained  was  characterised  by  a  cer- 
tain externality  and  forcefulness.  The  state  in  itself 
was  neither  to  the  mediaeval  Catholic  nor  to  the 
Puritan  a  divine  creation.  As  an  element  of  the 
world,  it  was  to  be  subdued  to  the  law  of  Christ.  It 
stood  over  against  the  Church,  and  by  receiving  the 
Church's  yoke  it  was  to  be  made  the  handmaid  of 
the  Church. 
y'J  The  modern  state  stands  upon  a  different  footing. 
It  claims,  as  well  as  the  Church,  the  distinction  of 
a  divine  ordination.  It  shares  with  the  Church 
^  something  of  the  latter's  prerogative ;  it  is  in  a  sense 
co-equal  with  the  Church.  There  has  been  com- 
mitted to  it,  as  to  the  Church,  a  share  of  the  divine 
work  for  man.  It  has  a  part  in  the  mission  to  hu- 
manity. It  is  the  sphere  within  which  man  exercises 
those  virtues  which  fit  him  for  the  future  kingdom. 

/  There  is,  therefore,  a  necessary  organic  relation 
between  the  state  and  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  we 
shall  now  be  in  a  position  to  define  that  relation. 
The  kingdom  of  God  is  God's  ultimate  end  and 
purpose  for  the  human  race.  We  cannot  ascribe  to 
the  state  the  same  permanence.  But,  if  we  read  the 
lesson  of  history  aright,  it  is  God's  will  that  his  king- 
dom should  in  this  our  time  embody  itself  in  the 

I  state.  The  ideal  of  the  state  as  we  now  under- 
stand it,  the  democratic  state,  is  on  its  ethical  side 


THE    KINGDOM    OF    OOD   AND    THE   STATE.        261 

identical  with  the  ideal  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  as 
confined  to  any  particular  area.  The  conditions  re- 
quired for  the  kingdom  are  essential  for  the  full 
realisation  of  the  state.  Undoubtedly,  the  state  and 
with  it  patriotism  are  destined  to  pass  away  and  give 
place  to  a  higher  conception  of  corporate  unity, 
where  all  barriers  shall  disappear  before  the  senti- 
ment of  one  common  humanity.  But  we  are  pre- 
sumably very  far  from  that  end.  At  the  present 
time  the  state  comprehends  within  itself  the  highest 
ideal  of  the  common  ethical  life  of  humanity.  The 
state  is,  as  it  were,  a  segment  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  as  it  exists  in  our  time,  in  an  imperfect  condi- 
tion, in  a  state  of  growth. 

No  lower  conception  of  the  office  and  sphere  of 
the  state  will  fit  in  with  a  Christian  view  of  the 
world.  However  imperfect  the  life  of  the  state  ap- 
pears now,  we  do  not  discover  its  true  character  in 
its  condition  at  any  one  moment  of  time,  any  more 
than  we  can  understand  the  nature  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  from  a  view  of  it  at  any  single  moment  of  its 
history.  As  with  the  kingdom,  so  with  the  state :  ^ 
its  essential  principle  is  growth,  aspiration,  expan- 
sion. We  believe  that  it  is  the  divinely  appointed  '  i/ 
means,  for  the  era  in  which  we  live,  towards  the 
realisation  of  the  kingdom  of  God.'  When  the 
means  shall  have  served  its  purpose  it  will  doubtless 
be  discarded.      But  that  does  not  impair  the  reality 

'  It  was  the  merit  of  De  Tocqueville  to  have  clearly  recognised 
the  religious  foundation  of  American  nationality. — See  Democracy  in 
America. 


262  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

of  those  large  and  high  ideals  for  which  the  state  at 
present  stands.  It  is  an  actuality  for  us  and  it  is 
for  us  to  recognise  its  divine  character. 

We  can  now  also  understand  the  relation  between 

wthe  Church  and  the  state.  They  both  work  to- 
gether for  the  same  appointed  end :  the  consumma- 
tion of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Each  has  its  own 
sphere ;  each  contributes  its  own  portion  to  the 
common  object.  It  is  the  special  function  of  the 
Church  to  lay  the  religious  foundation  ;  religion,  the 
direct  relation  of  man  to  God,  is  its  particular  sphere. 

^The  state  furthers  the  ethical  life  of  the  kingdom. 
The  ordering  of  the  mutual  relationships  of  men  in 
human  society  upon  the  basis  of  the  divine  law  is  the 
function  of  the  state.  So  we  understand  the  Church 
and  the  state  to  be  fellow-workers  in  solving  the 
problem  of  humanity. 

It  is  one  of  the  shortcomings  of  our  present-day 
Christianity  that  it  does  not  recognise  this  relation- 
ship between   the  kingdom  of  God  and  the   state. 

N  The  Church  is  wanting  in  the  sense  of  responsibility 
towards  the  state.  The  fatal  delusion  of  an  earthly 
infallibility  has  imposed  upon  her  a  crystalline  rigour 
and  robbed  her  of  the  adaptability  which,  recognising 
the  hand  of  Providence  in  the  changes  of  the  world, 
brings  forth  "  out  of  her  treasure  things  new  and 
old  "  to  meet  these  changes.  God  has  cast  human 
society  into  new  forms.  In  the  richness  of  the 
Christian  treasure  are  the  principles  which  are  es- 
sential to  the  preservation  of  these  forms.  But  the 
Church  rarely  brings  them  forth. 


THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD    AXD    THE    STATE.        263 

Christian  people  have  been  somewhat  in  the  habit 
of  satisfying  their  pubHc  obHgations  by  finding 
fault.  There  is  a  certain  useless  indulgence  in 
tirades  against  the  evils  of  the  times.  Lurid  pic- 
tures are  drawn  of  the  degradation  of  our  public  life. 
We  have  had  such  jeremiads  ad  nauscajn.  Is  it  not 
time  that  Christian  energy  were  directed  to  pointing 
out  those  principles  whose  application  to  the  exist- 
ing conditions  shall  promise  relief  ? 

Our  estimate  of  these  conditions  will  vary  accord- 
ing to  the  point  of  view  from  which  we  regard  them. 
The  first  question  here  refers  to  the  object  for  which 
the  state  exists.  It  is  one  of  those  comfortable 
doctrines  whose  truth  is  tacitly  assumed,  the  uncon- 
scious postulate  of  argument,  that  the  state  exists 
for  the  well-being  and  comfort  of  the  individual.  It 
is  the  power  which  regulates  social  life,  to  the  end 
of  personal  peace  and  satisfaction.  Our  considera-v^ 
tions  of  the  state  in  its  relation  to  the  kingdom  of 
God  have  prepared  us  to  recognise  another  purpose. 
The  modern  state  exists  for  the  production  of  char- 
acter. A  battle-ground  of  character,  a  field  for  the  ■■ 
exercise  and  building  up  of  manly  virtue  :  this  is  the 
meaning  of  the  state  as  understood  from  the  Chris- 
tian point  of  view. 

The  Christian,  therefore,  faces  the  situation  with  a 
sense  of  duty.  He  brings  to  the  task  something  more 
than  inherited  prejudices,  time-worn  sophistries, 
and  platitudes  which  pass  for  reasons.  Its  exigen- 
cies are  to  him  a  call,  not  for  criticism  or  unavailing 
lamentation,  but  for  the  discharge  of  a  sacred  duty 


264  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

in  the  investigation  and  application  of  those  princi- 
ples which  are  essential  to  the  furtherance  of  the 
national  life. 

This  task  is  not  a  difficult  one,  when  we  have 
recognised  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  Christ- 
ian morality.  The  state  cannot  exist  upon  the 
negative  principles  of  Hebrew  ethics,  but  demands 
that  its  citizens  bring  to  it  that  sense  of  positive 
duty  which  recognises  a  responsibility  proportioned 
to  the  individual's  gifts.  The  Christian  state  finds 
its  ethical  correlate  in  the  Christian  principle  of  pro- 
portional responsibility. 

This  principle  puts  a  different  face  upon  the  situ- 
ation, and  corrects  some  inveterate  prejudices.  It 
is  one  of  the  axiomatic  pre-conceptions,  received 
everywhere  as  current  coin,  that  the  ills  of  our  pub- 
lic life  are  due  to  the  inert  mass  of  ignorant,  low, 
venal  and  vicious  humanity,  which  hangs  like  a  dead 
V  weight  upon  our  free  institutions,  and  that  universal 
suffrage  is  the  monumental  failure  of  our  day.  But 
once  realise  the  bearing  of  the  Christian  principle  of 
a  proportional  responsibility,  which  exacts  not  the 
same  from  all  alike,  but  so  much  more  as  your  gifts 
are  larger,  and  let  it  be  understood  that  the  state 
exists  largely  for  the  elevation  of  that  corrupt  mass 
of  ignorance  and  viciousness :  and  the  responsibility 
will  be  seen  to  lie  elsewhere. 

For  many  centuries,  perhaps  as  far  back  as  the 
knowledge  of  human  affairs  extends,  liberty  has 
been  the  goal  of  human  progress.  Many  battles 
have  been  fought  in  the  long  warfare  of  advancing 


THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD   AND   THE    STATE.        265 

civilisation  in  behalf  of  social  and  political  freedom. 
Liberty  has  been  in  all  ages  the  watchword  which 
filled  the  human  breast  with  enthusiasm  and  in- 
spired deeds  of  heroism.  One  barrier  after  another 
has  been  overthrown  which  stood  in  the  way  of  the 
untrammelled  expansion  of  personal  and  political 
life. 

What  still  remains  to  be  done  ?  What  will  be  the 
next  issue  about  which  the  battle  will  be  drawn  ? 
We  ask  that  question  and  we  look  in  vain  for  an 
answer.  With  us  Americans  at  least,  the  battle  of 
liberty  has  been  fought  to  a  finish.  As  far  as  we  are 
concerned,  liberty  is  a  dead  issue.  The  equality  of 
man  is  an  accomplished  fact ;  there  is  no  more 
tyranny,  no  oppression;  there  are  no  unnatural  im- 
pediments, no  impassible  barriers.  Freedom  is 
complete.  The  cry  of  liberty  no  longer  appeals  to 
us,  it  stirs  no  more  noble  emotions. 

Shall  we,  therefore,  say  that  the  battle  of  progress 
and  civilisation  has  been  fought?  that  we  can  now 
rest  on  our  laurels  ?  By  no  means.  We  can  see 
gathering  on  the  horizon  the  dark  clouds  of  coming 
storms.  We  seem  to  be  hurrying  onward  towards 
new  crises  which  will  be  as  eventful  and  as  full  of 
difficulty  as  any  which  mark  the  past  progress  of  the 
human  race.  But  whoever  would  face  the  new  is- 
sues and  solve  the  problems  of  the  future,  must  put 
aside  the  rusty  weapons  of  the  past  and  arm  himself 
anew  for  the  fight. 

The  truth  which  in  one  generation  is  the  seed-corn 
of  a  great  and  beneficent  revolution  becomes  in  the 


266  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

next  a  falsehood  stopping  the  wheels  of  progress. 
Equality  was  once  the  grandest  of  truths.  But  to-day 
it  has  become  a  falsehood,  which  its  blind  votaries 
place  in  the  way  of  human  advance.  Men  are  not 
equal:  this  is  the  truth  upon  whose  recognition 
hinges  the  further  progress  of  civilisation.  The  man 
who  has  a  thousand  is  not  the  same  as  the  man  who 
has  a  hundred ;  the  man  who  has  gone  through  col- 
lege is  not  the  same  as  he  who  has  barely  learned  to 
read  and  write;  the  man  who  has  been  brought  up 
with  careful  nurture  is  not  the  same  as  the  maa 
whose  father  and  mother  were  drunkards;  and  the 
man  who  enjoys  the  inestimable  privileges  of  Chris- 
tianity is  not  the  same  as  the  man  who,  for  whatever 
reason,  is  a  stranger  to  them. 

Our  judgments  of  the  present  and  our  outlook  into 
the  future  will  radically  differ  according  as  we  recog- 
nise or  do  not  recognise  these  differences  and  the 
differences  in  responsibility  that  go  with  them. 
I  cannot  see  how  there  can  be  two  opinions  as  to 
what  Chistianity  teaches.  It  recognises  the  princi- 
ple of  proportional  responsibility.  From  the  Christ- 
ian point  of  view  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  where 
the  responsibility  for  the  political  evils  of  the  pres- 
ent lies.  ''  Unto  whomsoever  much  is  given,  of  him 
shall  be  much  required."  With  the  many  splendid 
exceptions  which  we  delight  to  honour  and  which 
promise  a  better  future,  wc  cannot  conceal  from  our- 
selves that  it  is  the  selfishness  of  wealth,  of  educa- 
tion, of  refinement,  of  Christianity,  which  to-day  is 
the    greatest  barrier  to    progress.      Not   until  men 


THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD    AND    THE   STATE.        267 

shall  learn  the  Christian  principle  of  property,  that 
it  is  held  in  stewardship  for  God,  not  until  they  learn 
the  Christian  principle  of  responsibility,  which  re- 
quires for  every  advantage  and  blessing  from  God 
a  service  to  fellowmen,  shall  we  realise  any  approach 
to  that  higher  and  better  social  life  in  the  state  for 
which  God  has  destined  us. 

The  saddest  sight  in  our  land  to-day  is  not  the 
corruption  of  public  officers  or  the  ignorance  of  the 
masses,  but  the  selfishness  of  those  who  ought  to 
know  better,  but  who  prefer  their  private  advantage 
to  the  public  good :  the  many  thousands  of  the  well 
to  do,  of  the  educated,  of  professedly  Christians, who 
have  never  lifted  one  finger  or  spoken  one  word 
for  purity  and  honesty  in  public  life.  What  Theo- 
dore Parker  wrote  when  the  dark  cloud  of  slavery 
hung  over  the  nation  is  precisely  true  to-day:  "  If 
our  educated  men  had  done  their  duty,  we  should 
not  now  be  in  the  ghastly  condition  we  bewail."  * 

No  prophet  ever  uttered  truer  words  than  those 
spoken  by  George  William  Curtis  in  1883:  "  While 
good  men  sit  at  home,  not  knowing  that  there  is 
anything  to  be  done,  nor  caring  to  know ;  cultivating 
a  feeling  that  politics  are  tiresome  and  dirty,  and 
politicians  vulgar  bullies  and  bravoes  ;  half  persuaded 
that  a  republic  is  the  contemptible  rule  of  a  mob, 
and  secretly  longing  for  a  splendid  and  vigorous 
despotism — then  remember  it  is  not  a  government 
mastered  by  ignorance,  it  is  a  goverment  betrayed 
by  Intelligence  ;  it  is  not  the  victory  of  the  slums,  it 

'  Quoted  by  G.  W.  Curtis,  lecture  on  "  Political  Infidelity." 


268  THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD. 

is  the  surrender  of  the  schools ;  it  is  not  that  bad 
men  are  brave,  but  that  good  men  are  infidels  and 
cowards."  ' 

' '  Good  men  are  infidels  : "  it  is  a  just  charge  against 
the  infidelity  of  our  modern  Christianity.  For  the 
burden  of  responsibility  lies  upon  the  Church. 
Why  are  these  things  possible  in  a  Christian  society  ? 
How  is  it  that  men  still  enjoy  the  reputation  of  be- 
ing good  men  and  Christians  who  have  never  per- 
formed one  duty  to  society  ?  Why,  moreover,  is  it 
that  a  man  may  sink  the  public  welfare  in  subservi- 
ency to  party,  or  condone  dishonest  practices  in 
public  life,  and  yet  hold  his  head  high  in  a  Christian 
society  ?  We  are  constrained  to  answer  :  The 
Church  has  not  yet  learned  to  appreciate  her  obliga- 
tion or  her  opportunity.  The  Church  has  the  power 
of  affecting  public  opinion  so  as  to  bring  scorn  and 
contempt  upon  the  man  who  performs  no  duty  to 
the  public  or  who  allows  selfishness  to  dictate  his 
course.  It  is  upon  the  Christianity  of  the  country 
that  in  the  last  resort  rests  the  responsibility  for  the 
immoral  condition  of  our  public  life.  That  Christ- 
ianity has  not  yet  fully  awakened  either  to  the  con- 

'  Speech  made  before  the  New  England  Society  on  "Puritan 
Principle  and  Puritan  Pluck."  It  is  impossible  not  to  feel  keenly 
the  destructive  tendencies  in  modern  society,  how  the  laboriously 
achieved  progress  of  our  modern  civilisation  is  threatened  by  the 
socialistic  agitation.  But  it  is  equally  impossible  for  the  candid  ob- 
server, admitting  the  justice  of  the  position  taken  in  the  text,  to 
deny  that  this  danger  is  but  the  nemesis  for  the  neglect  by  Christian- 
ity and  the  Church  of  the  Christian  principle  of  a  responsibility  pro- 
portioned to  the  individual's  gifts.  God's  justice  often  works  out  its 
ends  in  rough  ways. 


THE    KINGDO.M    OF    GUD   AND   THE    STATE.        269 

sciousness  of  the  true  relation  of  the  state  to  the  / 
kingdom  of  God,  or  to  the  Christian  principle  of  a 
proportional  responsibility,   in   which   that   relation 
must  find  its  practical  realisation. 

The  Church  of  Christ  to-day  holds  the  key  to 
the  situation.  There  are  not  wanting  signs  that 
she  is  coming  more  fully  to  realise  her  mission.  It 
is  becoming  more  and  more  recognised  that  the 
duty  of  the  citizen  to  the  state  opens  up  to  the 
vigour  and  enthusiasm  of  the  Church  a  sphere  for 
putting  Christian  principles  into  action,  where  every 
effort  tells  towards  the  expansion  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  It  is  not  too  much  to  hope  that  we  are  on  the. 
threshold  of  a  time  when  the  ethical  conceptions  of 
Christendom,  whose  gradual  expansion  in  the  past 
makes  the  history  of  civilisation,  will  receive  an  en- 
largement. It  will  come  slowly.  And  its  realisa- 
tion will  effect  a  change  in  civilised  society  which 
will  find  a  parallel  only  in  that  softening  of  manners 
which  made  the  gladiatorial  shows  impossible. 
Never  was  given  to  the  Church  a  grander  oppor- 
tunity for  serving  God  and  man.  A  thoughtful 
realisation  of  God's  will  for  man,  which  shall  make 
her  see  the  God-ordained  mission  of  the  state,  and 
a  strength  of  purpose  to  perform  her  allotted  func- 
tion :  let  her  fulfill  these  conditions,  and  she  will 
rise  to  her  splendid  opportunity. 

The  task,  we  cannot  conceal  from  ourselves,  is  a 
great  one :  it  is  nothing  less  than  the  creation  of  a 
new  sense  in  the  mass  of  humanity.  It  exists  in  a 
few ;  the  sense  of  proportional  responsibility  is  what 


V 


270  THE    KINGDOM    OF   GOD. 

gives  a  touch  of  splendour  to  the  noblest  lives.  Shall 
we  look  upon  these  as  the  anomalies  ?  a  kind  of 
freak  of  nature,  which  we  cannot  explain  ?  No.  It 
is  the  many,  lacking  that  sense  of  responsibility,  who 
are  the  anomalies.  The  men  who  to-day  live  in  the 
fear  of  God,  for  the  service  of  man,  counting  all 
things  God's,  nothing  theirs:  these  are  the  true  ex- 
ponents of  Christianity.  It  is  idle  to  dream  that  we 
shall  ever  reach  perfection.  But  it  is  the  anomalous 
self-contradictory  state  of  our  present-day  Christian- 
ity, that  men  are  walking  about  who  perform  no 
duty  to  the  state  or  fellowman,  and  yet  who  are 
allowed  to  cherish  the  delusion  that  they  are  Christ- 
ians and  civilised.  This  is  simply  the  contradiction 
of  Christianity.  To  say  that  this  is  the  state  with 
which  we  must  rest  satisfied,  with  a  thankful  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  few  brilliant  exceptions,  but  still 
allowing  them  to  be  by  right  exceptions:  this  is  to 
have  a  very  low  opinion  of  the  power  of  Christianity. 
History,  on  the  contrary,  bears  unmistakable 
testimony  to  the  tremendous  influence  of  that 
spiritual  force  which  entered  the  world  with  Christ ; 
and  when  we  consider  what  Christianity  has  done 
we  shall  be  careful  in  drawing  the  line  at  what 
Christianity  can  do.  The  first  thought  or  sentiment 
which  Christianity  infused  into  men  was  that  of  the 
sacredness  of  human  life.  Any  one  who  had  lived 
in  the  days  of  ancient  Rome,  when  deformed  children 
were  exposed  and  the  lord  was  master  of  the  slave's 
life,  could  have  had  little  conception  of  the  change 
that  would  come ;  and  if  a  prophet  had  then  foretold 


THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD    AND   THE    STATE.        271 

the  stringency  of  our  laws  for  the  protection  of  hu- 
man hfe,  if  he  had  drawn  a  picture  of  a  modern 
hospital  to  an  ancient  Roman,  he  would  have  been 
laughed  at  as  a  visionary,  just  as  "  practical"  men 
to-day  laugh  at  the  visionaries  who  believe  in  the 
power  of  ideal  forces. 

Moreover,  Christianity  has  a  power  of  unfolding 
itself.  The  light  has  constantly  increased.  Long 
after  that  first  lesson,  the  sacredness  of  life,  had  been 
learned,  there  dawned  upon  the  Christian  conscious- 
ness that  other  truth — the  infinite  value  of  the  human 
soul,  with  the  dignity  which  it  gives  to  all  life.  And 
if  a  fairy's  wand  could  reproduce  from  the  past  of  five 
hundred  years  ago  some  English,  German,  or  French 
community,  and  put  it  down  side  by  side  with  an 
American  community  of  to-day  under  similar  circum- 
stances, the  contrast  would  be  almost  as  striking  as 
that  between  heathenism  and  Christianity. 

When  we  consider  what  Christianity  has  done,  we 
shall  not  despair  of  what  Christianity  can  do.  We 
shall  believe  that  Christianity  may  yet  change  the 
last  vestige  of  savagery,  the  readiness  to  fight,  into 
the  Christian  virtue  of  readiness  to  serve.  We  shall 
believe  that  the  Church  has  it  in  her  power  so  to 
shape  public  sentiment  that  a  man  will  be  branded 
as  contemptible  and  made  a  social  outcast,  who  does 
not  perform  some  service  to  his  fellowmen  in  some 
way  commensurate  to  the  gifts  which  God  has  be- 
stowed upon  him. 

We  have  been  led  to  these  reflections  by  a  con- 


272  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

sideration  of  the  ethical  determination  of  the  Christ- 
ian life.  We  found  that  the  only  infallible  authority 
for  the  Christian  is  God.  With  the  acknowledgment 
of  this  truth  the  field  is  open  for  an  indefinite  ethical 
•  expansion.  The  Christian  life  is  made  up  of  the 
two  elements — the  religious  and  the  ethical.  Its 
ideal  is  twofold :  peace  with  God  and  obedience  to 
his  will.  No  life  is  normal  without  either  of  these. 
^  And  if  we  understand  the  meaning  of  Christ  aright, 
it  is  the  realisation  of  that  twofold  ideal  of  life  under 
his  own  leadership  that  is  comprehended  under  the 
idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

It  remains  to  set  the  kingdom  of  God  in  its  true 
historic  light  by  showing  its  relation  to  one  of  the 
greatest  facts  of  modern  history,  itself  also  the  em- 
bodiment of  an  idea.  The  kingdom  of  God  finds  its 
'■  historic  antithesis  in  the  kingdom  of  the  pope.  By 
this  is  meant,  that  if  the  kingdom  of  God  is  the 
realisation  in  human  life  of  Christ's  intention  and 
promises  the  elevation  of  humanity  to  the  highest  at- 
tainable heights,  the  modern  papacy  is  that  organisa- 
tion which  in  our  day  presents  the  greatest  obstacle 
to  the  advancement  of  that  kingdom.  I  say  ad- 
visedly, the  modern  papacy,  because  the  papacy  of 
this  century,  as  it  has  developed  since  that  24th  day 
of  May,  1814,  when  Pius  VII.  returned  to  Rome,  is 
a  very  different  thing  from  the  papacy  as  it  was 
before. 

The  papacy  is  not  the  Church  of  Rome,  though  it 
has  almost  sucked  the  vitality  out  of  that  body. 
The  Church  of  Rome  is  a  body  comprising  a  vast 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  AND  THE  STATE.   278 

number  of  human  souls,  in  which  Hves  much  beauti- 
ful piety  and  devotion,  but  where  whatever  there  is 
of  true  religion  exists  in  spite  of  the  iron  hand  of  a 
system  which  is  doing  its  best  to  throttle  all  spiritual 
life.  The  papacy  is  the  child  of  the  ancient  Caesarism. 
It  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  a  religious  organisa- 
tion ;  it  is  as  truly  mundane  as  the  Caesarism  whose 
mantle  it  has  assumed.  It  is  a  vast  and  wonderful 
system  with  one  head,  whose  essential  governing 
principle  is  the  exploitation  of  the  religious  interests 
of  its  followers  for  its  own  worldly  benefit.  The  lust 
of  rule  is  the  secret  of  the  papacy,  as  it  was  the 
principle  of  Roman  imperialism. 

One  of  the  most  singular  phenomena  of  our  mod- 
ern intellectual  life  is  the  almost  total  indifference  of 
accurate  research  to  that  great  power,  the  papacy.' 
There  is  no  fact  of  heaven  or  earth  that  is  not  to-day 
subjected  to  the  closest  scrutiny  of  the  keenest 
minds,  be  it  of  the  physical  constitution  of  the  world 
or  of  history.  Every  line  of  investigation  in  every 
department  of  knowledge  is  followed  with  the  most 
intense  interest.  But  here  is  one  of  the  colossal 
phenomena  of  history,  a  world-wide  empire  com- 
prising a  vast  multitude,  every  individual  of  whom 
recognises  above  the  secular  authority  of  his  particu- 
lar state  the  authority  of  the  head  of  that  empire ; 

'  The  attention  given  on  our  side  to  the  papal  bull  on  Anglican 
orders  is  a  mortifying  sign  of  the  degeneration  of  Protestantism. 
Half  the  argument  is  yielded  to  the  pope  by  taking  him  seriously.  I 
do  not  undervalue  orders  ;  but  Protestantism  is  untrue  to  itself  if  it 
does  not  hold  the  Church  of  Christ  at  a  higher  value  than  these  hair- 
splitting distinctions. 
i8 


274  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

and  in  our  own  time  his  claim  to  divine  attributes 
has  been  allowed  and  accepted.  And  yet  this  great 
fact  excites  little  attention.  Our  modern  investi- 
gator looks  with  contempt  upon  superstition.  It 
does  not  occur  to  him  that  superstition,  as  well  as 
any  other  fact,  requires  an  explanation.  Says  Prof. 
Harnack,  referring  to  the  decrees  of  the  Vatican 
Council  :  "  Our  century  has  accepted  almost  in 
silence  what  could  have  been  offered  to  the  spirit 
of  no  previous  century,  without  rousing  an  armed 
Europe  to  battle,  both  Catholics  and  Protestants."  ' 

This  singular  attitude  of  the  modern  intellectual 
world  towards  the  papacy  can,  I  think,  be  traced  to 
two  causes.  The  first  of  these  is  that  exclusive  tend- 
ency of  Protestantism,  which,  identifying  religion 
with  intellectual  problems,  over  these  problems  for- 
gets the  needs  of  millions  of  human  creatures,  who 
care  nothing  about  intellectual  questions,  but  who 
have  very  decided  religious  wants.  The  second  is  the 
strange  blindness  which  prevails  in  the  intellectual 
world  to  the  religious  factor.  It  is  a  common 
opinion  that  social  man  can  be  understood  without 
taking  into  consideration  the  chief  motives  which 
govern  the  actions  of  the  individual. 

There  is  no  more  disastrous  mistake  than  that 
w4iich  is  frequently  made,  which,  in  classifying  the 
forces  that  to-day  are  operative  in  society,  places  the 
destructive  forces  of  atheism,  infidelity,  materialism, 
at  the  one  extreme,  and  at  the  other  the  supposedly 
conservative  force  of  a  superstitious  religion,   and 

'  Dogmejigeschichte ,  iii,,  p.  648. 


THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD    AND    THE    STATE.        2iD 

which  incHncs  to  look  upon  that  spirit  which  is 
credulous  of  everything  and  yields  to  any  authority 
that  calls  itself  religious  as  a  fault  leaning  to  virtue's 
side.  History  teaches  abundantly  that  superstition 
and  unbelief  are  close  friends.  They  have  more 
than  once  become  allies,  as  they  did  under  a  Fred- 
erick 11.  and  under  a  Napoleon.  Prof.  Harnack, 
speaking  of  modern  France,  shows  how  irreligion 
and  Jesuitism  have  clasped  hands:  "The  Hugue- 
nots had  been  expelled,  the  Jansenists  broken  or 
annihilated :  the  French  people  now  belonged  to 
the  Encyclopedists  and  Voltaire.  It  hated  the 
Jesuits;  but  because  it  is  easy  enough  to  drive  out 
the  fear  of  God,  but  not  the  terror  of  God,  this  peo- 
ple belonged  from  that  time  to  that  very  Church  of 
the  Jesuits  which  it  hated  and  derided.' 

The  kingdom  of  God  and  the  kingdom  of  the 
pope  are  antitheses,  because  the  one,  recognising  the 
wants  innate  in  human  nature,  brings  man  to  his 
Creator;  the  other,  recognising  those  same  wants,  by 
them  leads  man  to  the  usurped  throne  of  a  creature. 
The  end  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  God,  the  end  of 
the  papacy  is  the  pope.  This  distinction  designates 
the  two  poles  of  human  character:  that  which  looks 
above  the  creature  to  the  eternal  and  is  fast  anchored 
in  God,  and  that  which  does  not  rise  above  earth 
and  is  anchored  in  the  shifting  sands  of  human 
mutability. 

It  is  no  mere  accident,  but  an  entirely  natural 
consequence   of   the   essential   nature  of   state  and 

'  Ibid.,  iii.,  p.  639. 


276  THE    KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

Church,  that  the  history  of  Europe  in  this  century  is 
largely  the  history  of  an  intense  struggle  between 
the  aspiring  sense  of  nationality  and  the  papacy, 
and  that  even  in  America  we  have  an  uneasy  feeling 
of  an  approaching  storm.  By  the  conditions  of  its 
V  being  the  Church  of  Rome  is  irreconcilably  opposed 
to  the  modern  state.  The  democratic  state  is 
founded  upon  the  principles  of  the  gospel,  it  is  the 
embodiment  of  the  kingdom  of  God ;  and  the 
papacy,  which,  by  setting  the  pope  in  the  place  of 
God,  has  repudiated  the  gospel,  has  instinctively 
recognised  in  the  spirit  of  nationality  its  enemy, 
with  whom  there  can  be  only  a  life  and  death 
struggle. 

One  may  stand  in  Rome  upon  the  Pincian  Hill. 
The  eternal  city  at  his  feet  is  overshadowed  by  the 
vast  pile  of  St.  Peters  and  the  Vatican.  Opposite, 
at  one  of  the  highest  points  of  the  surrounding  hills, 
overlooking  the  city,  is  the  heroic  equestriai.  statue 
of  Garibaldi.  Outlined  against  the  sky  it  is  a  strik- 
ing feature  of  the  landscape — and  as  suggt  stive  as 
it  is  striking.  He  stands  there  as  having  come  to 
conquer  and  rule  over  the  city  at  his  feet.  In  that 
^^  statue  I  seemed  to  see  the  spirit  of  nationality  and 
the  kingdom  of  God  come  to  conquer,  not  in  Italy 
only,  but  the  world  over,  the  kingdom  of  him  who 
has  usurped  the  place  of  God.  So,  we  believe,  it  is 
written  in  the  decrees  of  heaven. 


THE     END 


Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Libf.ify 


1   1012 


01090  7246 


Date  Due 

*^ ' 

TACULTY 

^[„.i--^ 

^ 

}j^m»^-Jf-- 

1 

^'•IMWUJ 

iW 

1 

/ 

f 

i 

1 

\ 

.      ^ 

!n^M 

\ 

-M^^^ 

} 

w^ 

f) 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

